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

Fwd: Not much info about how this transition occurred, but it's interesting how architecture changed along with shift from care of commons to individual self-preservation
by Michel Bauwens 13 Oct '17

13 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marie Venner <marie(a)vennerconsulting.com> Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:48 PM Subject: Not much info about how this transition occurred, but it's interesting how architecture changed along with shift from care of commons to individual self-preservationhttps://www.theguardian.com/ science/2017/oct/11/lentils-origins-of-social-inequality *Not much info about how this transition occurred, but it’s interesting how architecture changed in the Ubaid from semi-permanent, mostly circular structures (and shared resources) to permanent, rectilinear buildings occupied by (individual) self-sufficient households…* The layer we’re excavating at the site dates to around 4,400 BC, according to our C14 samples, which places it near the end of a period called the Ubaid. In northern Mesopotamia the Ubaid covers about a thousand years (c.a. 5,300-4,300 BC) and it was a critical period of social transformation during which the foundations were laid for the birth of the first cities. In the Ubaid period, people began more intensive, year-round cultivation, leading them to build larger, more permanent settlements. Unlike the preceding Halaf period society, which seems to have been essentially egalitarian with resources held communally, the late Ubaid period saw the introduction of significant competition and social stratification. Economic production became privatised, and authority – both religious and secular – appears to have been centralised. As co-director Professor Robert Carter explains: *The weakening of a strong communal ideology surrounding food production and storage increased the potential for dominant families to emerge, either through consistently greater success, or through force or unequal conditions of exchange. This in turn created the preconditions of specialisation and social inequality upon which urban life was founded in Mesopotamia.”* Architecture changed in the Ubaid from semi-permanent, mostly circular structures to permanent, rectilinear buildings occupied by self-sufficient households. The ubiquitous structure of this new, more urban life was the tripartite house; a building with a large rectangular central space separating two suites of smaller rooms. It’s a tripartite house that we’re excavating at Gurga Chiya. The house sits on the south side of the settlement, off a broad, cobbled lane. Its walls are made of *pisé* – rammed earth – and after more than six thousand years they’re almost impossible to tell apart from the slightly less rammed earth surrounding them. It’s emblematic of the Ubaid that this large cache of lentils resides within a private house and not in a public building. It represents a valuable crop which was the property of one family and did not belong to the wider community, as it would have in the previous more egalitarian periods. The Gurga Chiya lentils represent an accumulation of private wealth during a time which saw the birth of the chief mechanisms of social inequality. -- 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: Deepdive follow-up meeting, process going on, thank you for reactions
by Michel Bauwens 13 Oct '17

13 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Cousin <l.cousin(a)coopseurope.coop> Date: Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:52 PM Subject: Re: Deepdive follow-up meeting, process going on, thank you for reactions Dear Nicole, Thank you for your message. I will unfortunately not attend the Platform Cooperativism event in New York. Can I ask you to keep me updated with Barcelona? It may be of interest for us. Lastly, some fresh news for you all. Cooperatives Europe drafted a vision paper on collaborative economy over the summer. We will release it during an event which will be held at the European Parliament in Brussels, on 7 November from 14:30 to 16:00. I’ll send invitations soon – in the meantime, please block your calendar if you are interested to attend. All the best, Louis Cousin Project Officer *Cooperatives Europe* European Region of the International Cooperative Alliance Rue du Trône, 4 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Rue+du+Tr%C3%B4ne,+4&entry=gmail&source=g> | 1000 Brussels Tel. +32 2 213 00 83 Web. www.coopseurope.coop Follow us on Facebook <http://on.fb.me/1lerwcc> | Twitter <http://bit.ly/coopseuropetwitter> | Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cooperatives-europe?trk=cp_followed_name_c…> | Flickr <http://bit.ly/1Tp3nub>

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] thinking true meta-governance and the gaps in p2p theory regarding the household economy
by Michel Bauwens 13 Oct '17

13 Oct '17

this is exactly the point of adding this, as the sphere of reproduction etc ... but, yes, from the point of view of the political economy for now so the question is for me, what can the commons sector, reconfigured as we propose, do for and with the sphere of the household and reproduction (and vice versa, it's inter-dependence with it) On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I totally agree that this is a critical conversation and economic > sector. But don't forget raising the children and caring for the > elders. > > A lot of child development and elder care happens in institutions that > are often more-or-less commons, but homes are still the core. > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Sharon Ede <sharonede.au(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks for this Jose, an important observation: > > > >>I have really collapsed household and commons, because I on the one > hand, I > >> see the family as a commons and caring as commoning, but on the other > hand, > >> I have not seen any solution yet emerge, as how commons-based peer > >> production can actually help the household economy, > > > > Monbiot is riffing off of Kate Raworth's Doughnut Economics concept (see > > attached image), which is of course a fusion of many others' ideas before > > her - she gave an excellent presentation on this at the Building a New > > Economy Conference in Brisbane via Skype, but I don't think it is online > > yet. > > > > I'm not quite sure what to say in terms of frameworks, governance aspects > > etc...also, words like 'household' and 'domestic' carry lots of baggage - > > but I don't know how else to talk about it...'household commons economy'? > > > > But initial things that spring to mind: > > > > One thing I'd very much enjoy seeing covered in this research is > 'emotional > > labour' (cognitive load), along with physical labour undertaken in the > > household. It's not always done by women, but a lot of it is, and though > > some doubt it is even a thing (or dismiss it), it very much is, and > there is > > a cost involved for those doing it (see attached pdf). It absolutely will > > emerge in any debate about household economics, and I can't stress enough > > the ire this raises among most women I've talked to about it. > > > > Other references: > > > > www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12063822/emotional- > labor-gender-equality > > > > www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/08/women-gender- > roles-sexism-emotional-labor-feminism > > > > Specific 'commons' approaches related to household/care: > > > > Please check out MamaBake http://mamabake.com/about/ - it was started > by an > > Australian woman called Michelle Shearer who was a Mum to young kids > (and an > > avid surfer). A friend dropped around one night with an entire tray of > > lasagne, and she was so overjoyed that she could go surfing instead of > > making dinner, that she thought about how she could make this happen for > > others. So big batch baking (which could ALSO work for single > professionals, > > isolated older men) was born. Self organised local groups that do big > batch > > baking, after agreeing on ground rules re: dietary preferences, > > restrictions, and go home with a few meals for the week, to give them the > > night off. > > > > Over and over I hear again that daily domestic necessities like cooking > > meals are the biggest bone of contention, and its less the actual cooking > > that deciding what to cook, and making sure all the stuff is there > > (cognitive load). > > > > Then there are things like Meal Trains, when people are sick or in need > of > > temporary care in their home: www.mealtrain.com > > > > My big question is: > > > >>then, they need to relate to each other, given us commons-market, commons > >> to state, commons-households, etc.. > > > > How, what do we mean by 'need to relate to each other'? > > > > There is a raging debate going on about whether to put a price on nature > so > > it shows up on the balance sheet, and if that is just falling into the > trap > > of a logic that needs changing; I suspect that the same question will > arise > > here, but if that's not the approach to take, then what is (being mindful > > about some of the unresolved questions around UBI etc). > > > > That's about all from me for now on this, but I am interested to stay in > the > > loop on this one :) > > > > Cheers > > Sharon > > > > > > > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 17:08, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > > wrote: > >> > >> the following was prompted by Jose Ramos, who was thinking about his new > >> book on commons policy, > >> > >> SO, WE NEED TO WORK ON SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN P2P THEORY, and in > particular: > >> > >> > >> after hearing a recent monbiot video where he mentioned 4 economic > >> spheres, (market-state-commons-households), rather than the 3 we are > using > >> at the p2p foundation (market-state-commons) ... > >> > >> > >> I have started thinking that in our (at least mine) own work, I have > >> really collapsed household and commons, because I on the one hand, I > see the > >> family as a commons and caring as commoning, but on the other hand, I > have > >> not seen any solution yet emerge, as how commons-based peer production > can > >> actually help the household economy, > >> > >> > >> so basically, I am asking for help and ideas on how we could think this > >> through, > >> > >> > >> here is a potential framework: I would suggest a potential scheme > >> > >> take the 4 economic sectors: commons, state, market and households > >> > >> each of these has internal governance aspects and specific > characteristics > >> > >> then, they need to relate to each other, given us commons-market, > commons > >> to state, commons-households, etc.. > >> > >> then, all of this needs a meta-framework > >> > >> > >> so far the work at the p2p foundation has been at the intersection of > 1) a > >> general framework for commons/state/market, and I believe we have done > good > >> work on this 2) work on commons-state (in value in the commons economy > and > >> other work) 3) state-commons: our work in ecaudor (focusing on social > >> knowledge commons) and our work in ghent, focusing on institutional > design > >> for public-commons cooperation; I think we have done good work and > advanced > >> significantly in these 3 directions > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > >> http://commonstransition.org > >> > >> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > >> > >> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > >> > >> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

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 12 Oct '17

12 Oct '17

thanks Michael for this valuable perspective, which was also tackled in our latest publication on the thermodynamics of peer production, I have launched a challenge to our community of discourse around the p2p-foundation but would welcome any input from the people here, as well, as I think this problem of reconfiguring a political economy that balances four crucial sectors and institutions, is of importance to us all: BEGIN TEXT: the following was prompted by Jose Ramos, who was thinking about his new book on commons policy, SO, WE NEED TO WORK ON SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN P2P THEORY, and in particular: after hearing a recent monbiot video where he mentioned 4 economic spheres, (market-state-commons-households), rather than the 3 we are using at the p2p foundation (market-state-commons) ... I have started thinking that in our (at least mine) own work, I have really collapsed household and commons, because I on the one hand, I see the family as a commons and caring as commoning, but on the other hand, I have not seen any solution yet emerge, as how commons-based peer production can actually help the household economy, so basically, I am asking for help and ideas on how we could think this through, here is a potential framework: I would suggest a potential scheme take the 4 economic sectors: commons, state, market and households each of these has internal governance aspects and specific characteristics then, they need to relate to each other, given us commons-market, commons to state, commons-households, etc.. then, all of this needs a meta-framework so far the work at the p2p foundation has been at the intersection of 1) a general framework for commons/state/market, and I believe we have done good work on this 2) work on commons-state (in value in the commons economy and other work) 3) state-commons: our work in ecaudor (focusing on social knowledge commons) and our work in ghent, focusing on institutional design for public-commons cooperation; I think we have done good work and advanced significantly in these 3 directions On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Michael Lewis <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > An important and useful thread…. > > I pick up on Henry’s comments the language of growth and development and > then pose questions related to the suggestion by Pat and Stephen that the > defining focus of Synergia being co-operative economics for Synergia > > Immediately below is a comment that suggests Resilience over Growth as a > key principle for guiding our setting of priorities. I identify six others > in The Next Systems Paper I wrote. Henry, who has read the essay has > probed each of my assertions, which I very thankful for. (I am preparing > when I have time a full response. Hopefully I will be able to share it > soon.) Here I only respond to Henry’s comments on Resilience Over Growth s > > *Resilience over Growth Your comment “do we not need growth, for > example, to fund better health provisions, to treat more people, to provide > better care for the elderly and frail, etc.)* > > *This is such an important question Henry. It cannot be addressed without > broadening the contextual analysis, which I think I try to do in the Next > System paper. Though the list is long, for now I set out only two that > drive me to question your premise of your question regarding growth.* > > *1. We are consuming equivalent to almost 1.6 earths natural resources > each year. > (http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/lpr_2016/ > <http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/lpr_2016/>) In > short, our planetary bio-capacity is being ignored, at our collective > peril.* > > *2. Empirical evidence of climate breakdown is outstripping IPCC model > predictions, the implication being that the time frame for mitigation and > adaptation measures is shortening. Moreover, research seeking to determine > the economic costs of climate breakdown suggest current and future costs > are huge. Bloomberg reported on research suggesting that climate breakdown > impacts are already close to $1 billion per DAY in the U.S. alone.* > > *3. **Research focused on whether energy and material resources can > be uncoupled from growth, an assumption one finds in most political and > policy positions, is not supported by the evidence in this recently > published peer reviewed > paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5065220/ > <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5065220/>* > > Some food for thought re: using the language of growth and development > > First, given the overwhelming weight of mounting evidence, why would we > deceive ourselves and others by employing ‘growth' to describe progressive > goals of any kind? > Second, I worry very much that within our cultural mindset development > is virtually synonymous with economic growth. Resisting extractive > practices > within capitalism provoke predictably angry responses - why are you > against the jobs *development *brings and the taxes development generates > to pay for the services and supports we need in society. Embedded in > our economic and cultural DNA is that growth is the priority and > development is the means to achieve it. > While I agree with your interpretation of the word development being > recast in ‘well-being’ terms I worry that it is so deeply embedded in > capitalist culture it has lost its meaning. > > Language matters a lot. How we shape and advance discourse, strategies and > projects is framed around by our language. This is perhaps especially so > given our goals linked to shifting the paradigm and expanding economic and > political solutions that are counter to key features of capitalisms > predatory logic.. > > I advocate resilience as a much more generative word fit for our times: it > is relevant ecologically, socially, economically and culturally. This is > why in the book Pat and I wrote we systematically, across every sector and > many cases, offered reflections on the extent to which this manifested > resilience principles and how they advanced transition. > > One advantage of Resilience is that its principles are derived from how > eco-systems function. The Stockholm Resilience Centre has done > tremendously important work on socio-ecological systems that are > local, regional and global in scope. By definition resilience grapples > with the threats to health, degradation and tipping points, on the one > hand, and multi-scalar restorative strategies for strengthening social, > ecological and economic resilience. ‘Growth’ and ‘development’ set within a > Resilience framework take on a very different meaning. Growth is by > definition limited to planetary boundaries. What priorities we set for > ‘growth’ look very different, for example, investmentt focused a rapid > expansion/growth of ecological restoration, land fertility, agro-ecological > food production,infrastructure to radically reduce water consumption, > especially in agriculture, smart grids that enable maximizing resilience > and democratic decentralized ownership, radically expanded retrofitting for > energy conservation, non-debt based money creation for direct investment in > transition priorities, etc. etc > > Synergia, in my view, provides a major opportunity to position cooperative > economic democracy as one strategic path for strengthening key aspects of > socio-ecological resilience. Resilience thinking and related applications > on the ground very much parallel our thinking around decentralized, > distributed and democratic ownership, subsidiarity in the realm of > governance, elevated emphasis on strengthening local/regional self-reliance > etc. > > I think Stephen Yeo, or perhaps it was Pat, reminded us of the entomology > of the word wealth is ‘well being’. This is the goal. Given the precarious > circumstances people and planet are in I suggest resilience provides a > principled, science based framework more relevant to guiding our > discussions and action than ‘growth’ and ‘development’ . Cooperative > Economic Democracy and Cooperative Economics are strategically important > sub-sets, parts of the whole, which when combined with others have the > potential to advance the ‘synergy’ required if we are to achieve the > radically transformative changes we need. > > > Michael Lewis > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the basis for my assertion that resilience over growth is a key > principle. Growth is only tenable intellectually if one disassociates the > economy from the realities of a finite planet having limits. > > On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:55 AM, Stephen Yeo <stephen.yeo(a)phonecoop.coop> > wrote: > > I too think, with Pat, that: > > ' we should position Synergia to become a course in Co-operative Economics > and talk about this rather than new political economy' Quite apart from the > content, Co-operative Economics is , maybe, a more attractive 'brand ' for > current students ... and more immediately challenging to dominant producers > distributors and exchangers of 'Economics' ? > > This might come up at the forthcomin g conference in Manchester on the > Co-operative University on Nov 9th ( details from Cilla Ross) > solidarity from, > Stephen > On 09/10/2017 16:01, pat commonfutures wrote: > > Hi Henry, Stephen, Michel, John, Mike, MIke and Tim > > Great comments. Henry if you review JS Mill in his Principles of Political > Economy, when he talks about a radical interpretation of the steady state > (he uses the term stationary state, but the same thing and meaning), he > shows how quantitative growth could stop and the shift would be on the > focus then on sharing wealth, the development of the good life for everyone > and human and cultural development. > > Also as Stephen will know, Mill's full version of his Principles which is > a huge book, has a vast section on the co-operative economy and how the > then small but growing co-op movement in Great Britain and Ireland could > evolve into the new economy. > > Mill also talks about how the stationary state could look after nature and > the environment and all written in about 1850. Mill's book was the most > popular textbook on economics in the second half of the nineteenth century. > Herman Daly takes his steady state economics from Mill. Also he produced an > incomplete book on Socialism before he died. > > Stephen, glad you agree with my observation that true Co-operative > Economics has been repressed and not taught for since 1989. John I think we > should position Synergia to become a course in Co-operative Economics and > talk about this rather than new political economy (it really did mean > capitalism historically because it is the nation state the determines the > mode of production - today this is the hegemony of the Washington > Consensus). > > All underscores the need for Synergia more than ever in this age of Trump > and Brexit. > > In solidarity > > Pat > > On 08 October 2017 at 14:22 Stephen Yeo <stephen.yeo(a)phonecoop.coop> > <stephen.yeo(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > A couple of thoughts: > > 1) re *growth*. I always liked Raymond Williams's use of the word > 'livelihood'.( Was it in his *Towards 2000 *which was building on > Rudolf Bahro's *The Alternative in Easter Europe *as well as on his own *The > Long Revolution ?)* More, and more sustainable livelihoods. And maybe > John Ruskin's *wealth *as opposed to *illth *might still help, folded > into the notion of *commonwealth *as it is. And maybe the psychoanalytic > ( was it Winnicott?) usage of *enough *as in *good enough *( parenting > etc) might still help: as in developing an idea of *growth enough? / *wealth > enough... > > 2) And Pat is ( as ever ...)right, re the lack of education on > specifically Co-operative economics. I think this *was *taught at the > Co-operative College at Stanford Hall, in the context of 'overseas > development' ( and by my brother Peter Yeo) during the 1960s and 70s? And , > half a century and more before that, we need to look at Plebs League and > WEA and University Extension economics classes. And then, later, at > Michael Barratt Brown and Royden Harrison's work with aduklt education/ > industrial education/ Miners' education classes, leading into the > foundation of 'the Northern Ruskin' i.e. the Northern College. But but > but... , that may have been a bit more Social Democratic/Left Labour in its > orientation than growing out of the Co-operative Movement. A radically > co-operative economics reaches back, as Pat suggests, to the Owenite ( > dismissed as Utopian) tradition ( though in *Socialism Utopian and > Scientific, *particularly in an 1892 Introduction to the English edition, > Engels was much less Engels-like about the 'utopians' than is often > assumed) . Last thought :I have long thought that J.A Hobson may need to > come back into the picture, but I am not enough of an economist to know > whether 'pre-Keynesian' 'liberal' etc is enough to demote him ! He was very > much influenced by John Ruskin on 'work', 'labour '. etc) > > anyway, > > solidarity from, > > Stephen > > On 08/10/2017 13:37, Michel Bauwens wrote: > > I don't use growth myself, > > degrowth, though an objective necessity, is not the right political message > > so we joined the post-growth alliance, but rather focus on a positive > formulation, > > that formulation is that commons-based mutualization can drastically > reduce the human footprint (hence degrowth) , but at the same time > guarantees our capacity to create more wellbeing services (hence grow > happiness) > > Francois Grosse has calculated that any growth of our matter/energy usage > highter than 1%,makes the very idea of a circular economy moot, > > see http://commonstransition.org/peer-peer-commons-matter- > energy-thermodynamic-perspective/ > > christian arnsperger's new book on a perma-circular economy is also vital > in this regard > > Michel > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Henry Tam <htam.global(a)talk21.com> wrote: > > Pat, Michel, > > > One thing I will chip in – and it’s something I mentioned to Michael > recently – about is the notion of ‘growth’ itself. ‘Growth’ encapsulated > by more polluting vehicles, more weapons manufactured and deployed, more > accidents and hence insurance claims, more unhealthy food consumed, etc, > etc, is neither good nor sustainable. And socio-economic structures > designed to promote such ‘growth’ ought to be criticised, and the end of > such ‘growth’ should be celebrated. But what about growth as > development? For example, more and better care provisions for the sick > and frail elderly, more leisure engagement in creative activities, better > and more widespread access of treatment and medication, greater liberation > from cold and dark hours through sustainable use of renewable energy, more > projects to promote and protect biodiversity, more cultural exchanges and > sharing of experiences across borders, etc. > > > Having more of something, & getting it in an efficient manner, is not > inherently undesirable. It depends on what it is. The presentation of > growth and development as negative features that should be eliminated gives > the wrong impression, and leads many who are not supporters of > commons/multi-stakeholder coops to shy away unnecessarily out of concern > that this is all about putting on the brakes to stay put at a static > society. > > > I’m more inclined towards ‘wise development’ than ‘no growth’. > > > Henry > > > *From: *Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> > *Reply-To: *Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop> > *Date: *Sunday, 8 October 2017 at 13:00 > *To: *Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> > *Cc: *Holemans Dirk <Dirk.Holemans(a)stad.gent> <Dirk.Holemans(a)stad.gent>, > Tim Crabtree <tim.crabtree(a)schumachercollege.org.uk>, John Restakis < > restakis1(a)gmail.com>, Colm <colm(a)solidarityeconomy.coop>, p2p-foundation < > p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org>, David Bollier <david(a)bollier.org>, > Stephen Yeo <stephen.yeo(a)phonecoop.coop>, Michael Lewis <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca>, > TWC Group <htam.global(a)talk21.com>, <mendell(a)alcor.concordia.ca>, Stacco > Troncoso <staccotroncoso(a)p2pfoundation.net>, Cilla Ross <Cilla(a)co-op.ac.uk>, > <kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com>, <mikeg(a)athabascau.ca> > *Subject: *Re: A globa-local synthesis of a possible city-supported > public-commons partnership for climate- friendly and ecologically balanced > provisioning systems > > > 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> > 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> > 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> 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> > 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> > 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: igure 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 > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Global Government Revisited (GTN Discussion)
by Michel Bauwens 12 Oct '17

12 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork(a)greattransition.org> Date: Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:15 AM Subject: Global Government Revisited (GTN Discussion) To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >From Luis Cabrera <l.cabrera(a)griffith.edu.au> ------------------------------------------------------- Response to Commentators on “Global Government Revisited: From Utopian Vision to Political Imperative” Luis Cabrera It is a rare privilege to be involved in a dialogue like this, not least for the insights to be gained from such accomplished theorists and practitioners. It is even more of a privilege be in the position of responding to their very thoughtful engagement with my own claims for institutional alternatives beyond the nation-state. In this response essay, I will first clarify the fundamentally instrumental nature of my claims and show how that should help answer some concerns raised about possibilities for regional and global democracy. I will then discuss concerns about whether my argument takes sufficient account of global diversity and more local belongings and governance, and also whether less formalized alternative models of global coordination would be preferable. I close with thoughts on possible global citizen actions which are implied by many of the contributions to the dialogue. The Instrumental Nature of the Core Argument The argument I presented for deep global political integration and global democratic practices is primarily instrumental. It sees democratic political institutions as potentially important tools for promoting individual rights protections. There are two main reasons for the focus on political institutions, including the institutions of some world government, as potential guarantors of rights. These were only implied in the article, but some of the responses lead me to believe that they should be made more explicit. The first reason is that political institutions are tasked with providing *complete coverage* for all in their jurisdiction. In this they are unlike private contractors, or the non-governmental and global governance organizations many respondents highlighted, which may be more selective. The second is that political institutions are uniquely tasked with ensuring *full compliance* from all persons with duties, including those related to adequately protecting the specified rights of all in their jurisdiction. The deepening or development of regional and ultimately global institutions is advocated as a potentially important means of promoting protections of key social, political, civil, and economic rights for more persons, in a global system whose current structure tends toward a gross underfulfillment of such rights. Participatory rights, along with rights to expression, assembly, ombuds, and judicial challenge familiar from current constitutional democracies, are also instrumentally valued. They provide mechanisms of accountability and important incentives for power holders to better consider the interests and rights of constituents, and to help ensure that political institutions actually do work to promote and protect their rights. Thus, the model is not one where, in Herman Greene’s words, “a global state would reach down from its high perch to protect each human’s rights.” Rather, it is one where individuals would have some robust means of publicizing and pressing rights claims in relation to co-citizens and political leaders at all levels. In that sense, it is in accord with Joan Cocks’s view that broader institutions would not automatically practice ethical or human-centered governance. Political struggle would remain the norm, but—if broader and deeper political integration proved feasible—it would be a broader struggle which could increase the leverage of those whose interests are routinely neglected in the current global system. Such an instrumental approach should be compatible with the highly sophisticated, state-weighted voting formula that Joseph Schwartzberg has developed for his World Parliamentary Assembly proposal and discusses in his response. [1] My presumption is that a genuinely defensible ideal or end-state system would feature something much closer to one person, one vote. But near-term compromises which reflect some of the current balances of power and wealth among states might be instrumentally justifiable, if they significantly increased possibilities for oversight, accountability, and much broader input moving forward. In relation to Ian Lowe’s related concern about diluted representation in very large global constituencies, I would reinforce with Andreas Bummel the importance of subsidiarity: some more local issues are appropriately addressed through local governance, but truly global issues require global coordination and decision making. And, as in very large states—India, for example, has some 815 million eligible voters—individuals do not typically expect to exert direct policy influence on such large-scale issues, but they can join with others in efforts to influence decisions. This by no means guarantees effective or fair influence, but a model which would aim at ultimately giving all some concrete standing as global citizens should be more promising than the current one of highly exclusionary global negotiation conducted with little publicity and few channels of contestation. Neo-imperialism, the Local, and Cosmopolitan Humility Richard Falk, who for more than fifty years has provided inspiration and careful arguments for more “humane global governance,” [2] raises significant challenges concerning the diversity of beliefs in the face of claims for universal human rights: **I would be more persuaded by Cabrera’s vision of the future if he dealt with the existential challenges posed by deeply entrenched adverse beliefs, values, and structures that make his desired future seem in the end to be more *dream* than *prospect*. Yet maybe Cabrera is right to posit a hopeful vision of the future without its pull on the moral imagination losing all credibility by being dragged through the swamps of political reality.** For Falk, failing to engage with the politics of global diversity and disagreement risks making an account of institutional transformation irrelevant. I strongly agree. In fact, I see it as imperative to spend as much time as possible directly investigating the salient contexts. When, as Falk observes, I speak of unauthorized migrants as enacting a form of “global civil disobedience,” it is because migrants themselves made me aware of this possibility. For a book on global citizenship and national belonging, I spent some five years interviewing more than 260 unauthorized migrants, border agents, civilian border patrollers, and migrant-rights activists in Mexico, the United States, and Europe. [3] I wanted to understand as deeply as possible the conflicting moral claims and viewpoints in play—including the deeply entrenched nationalist beliefs of those US citizens who belted on pistols and spent their vacation time scouting for unauthorized migrants at the Arizona-Sonora border. Unauthorized migrants, I concluded, challenge the exclusionary norms of a sovereign states system as few actors can. They starkly highlight ways in which especially the economic rights pledged to all in binding treaties signed by the large majority of countries remain available to relatively few. Falk notes that such migration can create deep tensions in the system, and for me that is very much the point—it can create a border-hardening backlash, but also the realization that the economic forces partly driving such migration demand more attention. The movement of persons can also, as Daniele Archibugi notes, highlight inequities in current regimes for distributing those migrants and especially refugees received in regions such as Europe. Pierre Calame suggests that human rights doctrine simply represents a form of domination exercised by powerful Western countries in the 1940s and continuing today. Important related concerns are raised by Ashish Kothari about the self-determination of peoples—in particular indigenous peoples, and by Richard Shapcott over whether countries would be forced into membership to promote the rights protections indicated. These are significant issues, and my current book project is centrally concerned with how a rights-based argument for global political integration might give due regard to more local beliefs and attachments. I frame this as a search for “cosmopolitan humility.” [4] For core insights, I turn to the work of B.R. Ambedkar, India’s Constitutional architect and revered symbol of Dalit (formerly “untouchables”) social struggle. Ambedkar was insistent from the earliest phase of his public career (ca. 1919–56) that Dalits’ universal “human rights” must be recognized and upheld. He inspired current efforts by the Dalit activists noted in the initial article to enlist UN human rights bodies in pressuring the Indian government on caste issues. Ambedkar’s contemporary and correspondent, W. E. B. Du Bois, fought in much the same way against racial discrimination in the United States, including approaching the newly created UN in the mid-1940s with exhaustive documentation of the repression of African Americans and a call for action. It is by studying Ambedkar’s work, and by conducting interviews with some fifty Dalit activists and those they serve around India, that I have sought to gain a better understanding of how universal rights standards can figure in more local struggles, and how more developed global institutions could appropriately support those struggles. I have also interviewed more than two dozen government officials and others from India’s ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, to better understand their claims that the Dalit activists are simply disloyal national citizens intent on “Breaking India” with the help of neo-imperialist Western forces. Similarly, I have interviewed members of the United Kingdom Independence Party about their Brexit claims for national self-determination for “indigenous Britons,” and against admitting Turks to the European Union, for reasons of “cultural fit.” In Istanbul and Brussels, I have sought to understand secular Turks’ claims against their own increasingly fundamentalist religious government, and the hopes they once had for reinforcing their own rights through closer European integration. The model emerging is inspired directly by Ambedkar, who sought to put India’s immensely diverse cultural, linguistic, and caste-divided groups into relations of *political humility*: formal citizen equality within shared democratic institutions. Humility I understand (with reference to extensive recent literatures in psychology and philosophy) not as plain deference to authority or competing moral claims, but as an acknowledgment of the equal moral standing of others, an openness to input from them, and an intellectual modesty about the finality and accuracy of the moral and empirical claims one can offer, including on the final shape of rights to be enshrined in constitutions or legislation. A similar ideal of cosmopolitan political humility would seek to promote the recognition of equal standing, participation, and reciprocity across borders in the near term, while also seeking to expand institutional mechanisms of suprastate input and participation, and especially accountability to the vulnerable within states, over the longer term. Thus, the model does not advocate the summary imposition of some fully realized set of political institutions over the entire world, were that somehow feasible. Rather, it entails a thoroughgoing commitment to intellectual modesty about principles and institutions, and an incremental and dialogic approach to global institutional integration and reform that could appropriately promote rights protections. Nothing in the approach dictates a rejection of local innovations, per the concern rightly raised by Arturo Escobar. In fact, the Latin American innovations he highlights could be important sources of insight for developing more cosmopolitan local governance—as a recent account focused on Medellín, Colombia, emphasizes. [5] Alternatives to World Government A fully integrated global political system is held up as a long-term aim, but it is a prima facie or provisional aim, consistent with the core instrumentality of the argument. If, for example, the laboratories of regional integration (European Union, African Union, Mercosur, Caribbean Community, ASEAN, etc.) somehow prove to have deep and recurring problems with stability or cohesion, or if they somehow weaken rights protections more than enhance them over time, that would be reason not to support further integration. Or, if expansive global integration, even in the powers-limited form I have advocated, ultimately threatens to harm rights much more than protect them, it should be rejected. In this sense, the incremental instrumentalism of the approach is a strength—it presumes and encourages institutional dialogue and experimentalism over a long period of time, in part because it presumes that identifying and developing a system which actually would reliably protect the rights of all persons in the world is a very long-term project. A number of respondents suggest alternate models. Al Hammond, Gwendolyn Hallsmith, and Michel Bauwens argue for ones featuring globally networked cities, and Lucie Edwards, Frank Fischer, and others give emphasis to the importance of global governance networks, including some centrally featuring non-governmental or international civil society organizations. I do not have the space here to give full credit where it is due to each of these very thoughtful proposals or reports on practice. I will note, however, that the instrumental approach I am advocating would very likely endorse many if not all of them, as means of strengthening individual rights protections, and as consistent with a more integrated global system. Such integration, at the regional level and gradually the global, should provide myriad opportunities for promoting the benefits the respondents highlight, including sharing local knowledge, developing insights that can be shared as global public knowledge, and multiplying cooperative connections between cities and regions. Further, the “cosmopolitan states” advocated by Shapcott, which would constitutionalize principles against harming outsiders, should also be compatible with regional and global institutions which could help to reinforce such principles. I would still want to raise concerns about a global governance or networked city model as an end-state aim. This is because such frameworks do not seek to provide full rights coverage for all individuals, or to provide mechanisms by which adequate compliance with corresponding duties could be achieved. Thus, while I would see many of these proposals as noteworthy and practical contributions, I would not see them as comprehensive possible solutions to the problem of massive rights underfulfillment in the current system. Another alternative suggested is to the global market economy, or capitalist system, presumed by my model. Adam Parsons and George Liodakis both raise concerns about the dominance of global capital, and Chella Rajan raises related concerns about the technocratic nature of current governments. In fact, my supposition is that global capital’s voracious appetite for new and bigger markets will provide much of the motive force for driving forms of global integration. As cosmopolitan democrats such as Archibugi and David Held have long argued, it is global trade and related global economic integration which can figure strongly in demands for political input and ultimately integration from below. I see it as continually creating pressures for more inclusive decision making, and for more political control over economic and related outcomes still very much influenced by the neoliberal economic model Parsons rightly critiques. Over time, trans-state efforts at expanding inclusion and input could help to develop the global consciousness that Allen White, Michael Karlberg, and Sylvia Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen identify as crucial to advancing any global political framework. A glimpse of the shape this might take is offered in the globalized “anti-globalization” activism of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Finally, I presume that increasing integration would make it increasingly possible to address persistent global problems such as nuclear weapons proliferation. I of course agree with Andreas Bummel, Joseph Schwartzberg, and others that such problems are immediate existential threats to humanity. However, while we can point to progress in the reductions of stockpiles since the Cold War, I am cautious about claims that the weapons could be fully eliminated in the absence of some scheme of deep integration, under which every existing and potential weapons holder has some meaningful assurance of security after elimination. It’s hard to envision a near-term scenario where that is possible, but if longer-term deep integration is possible, it would seem more feasible. Integration also should make more feasible in practice John Bunzl’s highly innovative ‘simultaneous policy’ approach to realizing concrete progress on a range of global problems. Conclusion A great deal more could be said, and my apologies to those whose responses were not engaged. I have profited from reading all of them. I will close with a brief reinforcement of the instrumental nature of the argument and its implications for near-term action. The imperative is to strengthen rights protections for individuals, and this opens a vast range of actions that could be undertaken by those seeking to act as global citizens. One way to view such action is as an attempt to help provide those protections that would be in place under global institutions which actually did seek to provide robust rights coverage for all. I discussed some representative actions in the 2010 global citizenship book, including donations targeted to effective and transparent aid organizations; domestic advocacy for more humane and liberal migration and migrant-integration regimes; admission and integration of refugees; and support for deeper and more accountable regional integration. The contributions to this dialogue have offered many more practical and indeed inspiring ideas about actions that those seeking to engage in practices of global citizenship can take. [1] Joseph Schwartzberg, Creating a World Parliamentary Assembly: An Evolutionary Journey (Berlin: Committee for a Democratic UN, 2012). [2] Richard Falk, (Re)Imagining Humane Global Governance (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013). [3] Luis Cabrera, The Practice of Global Citizenship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). [4] Luis Cabrera, The Humble Cosmopolitan: Rights, Diversity, and Trans-State Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2018). [5] Fonna Forman and Teddy Cruz, “Global Justice at the Municipal Scale: The Case of Medellín, Colombia,” in Luis Cabrera, ed., Institutional Cosmopolitanism (New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2018). ************************************ Thursday, August 31, 2017 >From Paul Raskin <praskin(a)tellus.org> ----- Dear GTN, The world confronts grievous global-scale risks with feeble global-scale institutions, or, as I’m fond of putting it, Earthland resembles a failed state (www.greattransition.org/publication/journey-to-earthland) This dangerous incongruity demands reconsideration of the fraught project of global government, a task Luis Cabrera takes on in his new GTI essay, “Global Government Revisited: From Utopian Vision to Political Imperative.” Surely any rigorous Great Transition vision must address the need for supranational decision-making, but what are the contours of new institutions appropriate for the task? What intermediate steps can move us down that road? Read Luis’s answers at www.greattransition.org/ publication/global-government-revisited. Please share your reactions and comments by SEPTEMBER 30. Looking forward, Paul Raskin GTI Director HOW WE WORK GT Network discussions of new essays occur in odd-numbered months. You receive comments via email, and can review all postings at www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-forum. Then, in the following even-numbered month, we publish the essay along with a “Roundtable” (edited commentary drawn from the discussion and the author’s response). ------------------------------------------------------- Hit reply to post a message Or see thread and reply online at http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/192- global-government-revisited/2483 Need help? Email jcohn(a)tellus.org -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: [CommonGood] Fyi and support: URGENT Request: Sign-Ons for Binding Treaty on TNCs at the UNHrC
by Michel Bauwens 10 Oct '17

10 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Birgit Daiber <bir.dai(a)hotmail.com> Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:14 PM Subject: [CommonGood] Fyi and support: URGENT Request: Sign-Ons for Binding Treaty on TNCs at the UNHrC To: "commongood(a)listi.jpberlin.de" <commongood(a)listi.jpberlin.de> Dear Friends and Colleagues, please take not and act on the urgent request, Tina Ebro sent us. Yours Birgit *bir.dai(a)hotmail.com <bir.dai(a)hotmail.com>* *www.birgitdaiber.eu <http://www.birgitdaiber.eu>* *Mobile: 0039-366-4207762* *Casella Postale No. 28, * *Uff. Posta, Via Vittorio **Emanuele* *I-98055 Lipari* ------------------------------ *From:* aepf-request(a)lists.riseup.net <aepf-request(a)lists.riseup.net> on behalf of tina ebro <cgebro(a)gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, October 9, 2017 5:33 AM *To:* AEPF e-group *Subject:* [aepf] URGENT Request: Sign-Ons for Binding Treaty on TNCs at the UNHrC Dear All, Please read urgent appeal below of TNI and Brid: - *Do sign on Statement 2017 http://www.treatymovement.com/statement <http://www.treatymovement.com/statement>. Statement — Treaty Alliance <http://www.treatymovement.com/statement> www.treatymovement.com <http://www.treatymovement.com> The website of the global civil society alliance jointly advocating for an international treaty that effectively addresses corporate human rights abuses. * - *Do reach out in your networks for sign-ons. * Warm wishes, Tina Tina Ebro Focal Person for Asia Asia-Europe People's Forum (AEPF) Mobile: +63-9178146311 <+63%20917%20814%206311> Skype: tina.ebro www.aepf.info c/o Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD) =============== Dear Colleagues in the AEPF, Warm greetings! I hope all goes well with you and your work. I write now to update you on the upcoming *Week of Peoples Mobilisation (Oct 22-2&) in Geneva *to accompany the 3rd Session of the UN Working Group on the Binding Treaty on TNCs and other business enterprises with respect to Human Rights. This week will be crucial in this struggle as governments have to move to negotiation mode...the EU members states are now engaging but "reluctantly". As we are in the last sprint for Geneva ... I am flagging up some urgent requests. *1) On the Parliamentarians Statement *in support of the Binding Treaty and Invitation to the World Parliamentarian Forum Oct 22/Geneva. I am posting below the Letter of the Parliamentarian Initiators - moving on a Call for the Binding Treaty and the Forum. (The GUE/NGL faction of the EP have been very active on this. This is a new initiative building on the previous participation of MPs in different fora supporting the Binding Treaty...but now hopefully to be become an international focal point for MPs and the Binding Treaty. It is really important to reach out to MPs on this...as it will have significant political impact in Geneva and afterwards in the next steps. Hoping Thomas that this could be an initiative where you could participate and support. Below the MP initiators Letter and links for Sign-on etc. Can you please forward the Letter of the MP initiators & add a short cover letter addressed to a Parliamentarian/s whom you think would want to sign. The Statement is on the website in EN/ES/PT/German/It/FR. - links are provided within the letter. By the way we intend to work with these MPs on this after Geneva. *2) Treaty Alliance Statement 2017* We have by now 650 + Organisational Signatures and 900 individual signatures....we are aiming for 2,000. As you know the Global TNC Campaign was a founding member of the TAis and we are activly campaigning for this broad support So we still need a lot of extra efforts on this!!!..Thanks for those who have signed but knowing that you are all very busy this is an urgent reminder to sign-on if not there alr a ady. But especially this is an appeal to reach out in your networks for sign-ons. Link to Sign on Statement 2017 http://www.treatymovement.com/statement Your efforts in this regard are really important. Do keep in touch! And in case you would like to join us in Geneva - this is the link to Global Campaign Week of Mobilisation: https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1_ PWyXiyjT3kltkA6- K4xJYLssuHnczthUzyJM9YJJRM/ edit#gid=0 Warm Greetings! Brid -- Brid Brennan Economic Justice Programme Transnational Institute (TNI) bridbrennan(a)tni.org tel: +31 20 662 6608 <+31%2020%20662%206608> www.tni.org Newsletters: http://www.tni.org/subscribe Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TransnationalInstitute Twitter: https://twitter.com/TNInstitute _______________________________________________ CommonGood Mailingliste JPBerlin - Politischer Provider CommonGood(a)listi.jpberlin.de https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commongood -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Have Monsanto and the Biotech Industry Turned Natural Bt Pesticides into GMO “Super toxins”?
by Michel Bauwens 09 Oct '17

09 Oct '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Latham <jrlatham(a)bioscienceresource.org> Date: Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:22 PM Subject: Have Monsanto and the Biotech Industry Turned Natural Bt Pesticides into GMO “Super toxins”? To: bsr-PROJECT-ELIST1(a)gn.apc.org Dear Friends and Colleagues Published today (Monday, October 9th) in *Independent Science News* *Have Monsanto and the Biotech Industry Turned Natural Bt Pesticides into GMO “Super toxins”?* By Jonathan Latham, PhD https://www.independentsciencenews.org/environment/have-monsanto-and- the-biotech-industry-turned-natural-bt-pesticides-into- gmo-super-toxins/#more-2262 *Synopsis*: GMO foods, especially those made from corn and soybeans, contain significant quantities of a diverse family of pesticidal proteins called Bt toxins whose mode of toxicity is to make holes in cell membranes. Newer GMO crops can contain up to six different Bt toxins. These proteins (also called Cry toxins) originate from the bacterium *Bacillus thuringiensis*. The biotech industry claims that its Bt toxins are natural and as safe as those used by organic farmers. GMO regulators around the world share this view. Indeed, they make it the baseline assumption of their risk assessments for food safety and environmental toxicology. As we show in a new peer reviewed publication, however, assumptions of similarity of any GMO Bt with its natural ancestor are very wide of the mark. More than that, we show that the differences between natural and GMO Bt toxins are such as to make the latter much more toxic. The changes made to GMO Bt toxins may expand the species range of Bt toxin activity to many more insects, but potentially to other evolutionary branches of life as well. Our publication thus represents a profound reassessment of Bt toxin safety and proposes that the biotech industry has lured complacent GMO regulators into dramatically underestimating the hazards of pesticides eaten by millions. Please share this if you find our work of value. Yours sincerely Jonathan Jonathan Latham, PhD Executive Director The Bioscience Resource Project Ithaca, NY 14850 USA Twitter and Facebook: @Biosrp www.independentsciencenews.org and www.bioscienceresource.org jrlatham(a)bioscienceresource.org Skype: jonathanlatham2 Tel: 1-607-319-0279 “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

great introduction to an alternative p2p technological path for human evolution
by Michel Bauwens 09 Oct '17

09 Oct '17

strongly recommended intro read by Vasilis Kostakis: https://entitleblog.org/2017/10/06/are-there-alternative-trajectories-of-te… -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] A globa-local synthesis of a possible city-supported public-commons partnership for climate- friendly and ecologically balanced provisioning systems
by Michel Bauwens 09 Oct '17

09 Oct '17

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> > 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> > 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> 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> > 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> > 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>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

2 2

Re: [P2P-F] [CommonGood] The Neoliberal Danger of Basic Income
by Michel Bauwens 09 Oct '17

09 Oct '17

wonderful Barb, thanks a lot for this reaction already, Michel On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Barb Jacobson <barbx45(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Yes I have seen this. I'm in the midst writing a long essay about several > attacks on UBI from the left, but there are a few things to say here. > > 1/ The end of the statement 'We must struggle for income support systems > that are based on adequacy, full entitlement and that are purged of > intrusive rules and moral policing' doesn't sound a whole lot different > from what a lot of us would call 'basic income'. <g> > > 2/ A pro-UBI critique of the Ontario pilots is needed - there are a lot of > problems with how they're being done, not least that what is actually being > tested is a means-tested negative income tax. Even still some interesting > facts re otherwise unconditional cash transfers may emerge. There are such > critiques of the Finnish experiment (which can be found on > http://basicincome.org) and the Canadian UBI movement is developing one > of the Ottawa experiment. > > 3/ By fighting a defensive struggle they are allowing capital to set the > terms, which I think has been the left's problem for the last 40 years. > Unsurprisingly, it has failed to inspire people in general, and equally > unsurprisingly, it is losing - the cuts in services and benefits is ongoing > without basic income. It's unclear to me what OCAP hope to gain by doing > this statement, and gathering support for it - the pilots in Ottawa are > already underway, so it won't stop them. Surely what would be more > effective is a critique of the specific problems with Ottawa's experiment - > for example the fact that the payments are not protected against debt > garnishment as current state benefits are; that passported benefits like > free meds and travel for disabled people has not been protected. Rather > than making demands around actual problems with the pilot like these, we're > asked to make an ideological choice. > > Few I've spoken to within the UBI movement see this as anything other than > a struggle for power in the long-term. This is happening at a lot of > different levels, not always as the kind of clear class struggle which OCAP > would recognise or see as 'valid'. One thing I would say is that the idea > of UBI has done a good job of splitting the neoliberals, not all of whom > support it - why is this not seen as a good thing? In my experience UBI has > also helped to open up people to a lot of other ideas - the role of > economic rent; the replacement of taxes on these with taxes on work; what > is necessary work, paid or unpaid; what is the commons and what is our > share in it - to name a few. These also must be part of the 'working class > political challenge to neoliberalism', surely? > > Best wishes, > > Barb > > > > On 09/10/2017 7:35, Michel Bauwens wrote: > > counting on you for a response, dear Barb <g> > > a significant quote about the mindset of the organizers: > > "f faith in a progressive basic income is misplaced, we wish we could > offer a shining and readily attainable alternative but this is not > possible. We are largely fighting a defensive struggle against a virulent > agenda to undermine social provision and increase the rate of exploitation. > We can only offer the hard slog of building stronger inclusive movements of > social resistance, rejuvenating unions and building a working class > political challenge to neoliberalism." > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:26 PM, tina ebro <cgebro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty <http://ocap.ca/> (OCAP) has drawn >> up the following statement on basic income (BI). It makes the case that, >> progressive hopes to the contrary notwithstanding, BI is being developed as >> a measure of neoliberal attack that should be opposed. We invite >> progressive organizations and individuals who hold positions in agencies >> and academic institutions, who agree with our arguments, to sign onto the >> statement. We hope that it will raise a voice of opposition and help >> develop information sharing and forms of co-operation among those, >> internationally, who reject the notion that basic income represents any >> kind of realistic response to the neoliberal attack. >> >> Endorsements and other responses can be directed to OCAP at ocap(a)tao.ca. >> from Socialist Project The Neoliberal Danger of Basic Income >> >> We, the undersigned, are convinced that the emerging model of basic >> income, reflected in pilot projects and other initiatives in a number of >> countries and jurisdictions, is one that would intensify the neoliberal >> agenda. The hope that there is any realistic chance of ensuring a truly >> adequate, universal payment, that isn’t financed by undermining other vital >> elements of social provision, is misplaced in our view. >> [image: Basic Income: Wolf in sheep's clothing] >> >> We are far from wanting to suggest that existing systems of income >> support are anywhere close to adequate. They provide precarious sub-poverty >> income under conditions that are marked by intrusive regulations and forms >> of moral policing. Moreover, decades of neoliberal austerity have made >> these systems considerably worse. >> >> However wretched and inadequate present systems may be, the assumption >> that basic income must or even could be an improvement on the status quo >> has to be tested by considering a number of factors. Historically, income >> support has been provided because those in political power concluded that >> outright abandonment of those not in the workforce would create >> unacceptably high levels of unrest and social dislocation. In the far from >> dead tradition of the English Poor Laws, income support has been provided >> at levels that were low enough to maintain a supply of the worst paid >> workers, in forms that were as punitive and degrading as possible. Again, >> the neoliberal years have seen these features intensified in what we must >> concede has been a highly effective drive to create a climate of >> desperation and a plentiful supply of low paid and precarious workers. >> >> If austerity driven governments and institutions of global capitalism are >> today looking favourably at basic income, it’s not because they want to >> move toward greater equality, reverse the neoliberal impact and enhance >> workers’ bargaining power. They realize that a regressive model of basic >> income can be put in place that provides an inadequate, means tested >> payment to the poorest people outside of the workforce but that is >> primarily directed to the lowest paid workers. This would be, in effect, a >> subsidy to employers, paid for out of the tax revenues and it would be >> financed by cuts to broader public services. Such a model would lend itself >> to disregarding the particular needs of disabled people >> <http://socialistproject.ca/bullet/1399.php> and, as a “citizen’s >> income,” could readily be denied to many immigrants >> <http://socialistproject.ca/bullet/1489.php>, especially those left >> undocumented. Under such a system, you would shop through the rubble of the >> social infrastructure with your meagre basic income. The kind of pilot >> projects and other initiatives that are emerging offer severe warnings in >> this regard (we include some links at the bottom of this article that >> provide information on several of these). >> Workless Future? >> >> However, some suggest that while regressive models could be developed and >> may pose a danger, a progressive and even “emancipatory” form of basic >> income is possible and realistic as a goal. Often, this is linked to the >> idea of preparing for a “workless future” in which vast numbers of >> technologically displaced workers can be provided for. The notion is that a >> universal payment would be provided unconditionally and that it would be >> adequate enough so that paid work, if it were an option, would be a matter >> of choice rather than necessity. While there are a few who suggest this >> could be won through large scale social action, advocates for a progressive >> basic income more often seem to assume that capitalist support and >> acceptance by the state can be won by way of a vigorous lobbying effort. >> >> In our view, a truly adequate and redistributive, let aside >> transformative, basic income is not possible within the confines of the >> current economic system. Firstly, the present balance of forces in society, >> after decades of neoliberalism, does not lend itself to the conclusion that >> a sweeping measure of social reform, that would reverse this whole agenda, >> is immediately likely. Beyond this, however, an income support system that >> removed economic coercion in a way that progressive basic income advocates >> suggest, would be more than turning back the neoliberal tide. It would >> actually mean that the state was providing the working class with an >> unlimited strike fund. It would undermine the very basis for the capitalist >> job market. It would constitute social transformation, a revolutionary >> change that is, to say the least, beyond the capacity of any possible >> social policy enactment. >> >> If basic income as emancipation is not possible, it can only too easily >> take form as neoliberal intensification. Yet, sadly, progressive advocates >> end up offering legitimacy to that regressive alternative but placing hopes >> in musings about basic income by Silicon Valley billionaires or by >> presenting cynical pilot projects, set up by austerity driven governments, >> as flawed but important first steps. However much they wish otherwise, the >> sow’s ear will not become a silk purse. >> >> “ >> >> We must fight for free, expanded and accessible public services. We must >> win decent wages and workers’ rights.” >> >> If faith in a progressive basic income is misplaced, we wish we could >> offer a shining and readily attainable alternative but this is not >> possible. We are largely fighting a defensive struggle against a virulent >> agenda to undermine social provision and increase the rate of exploitation. >> We can only offer the hard slog of building stronger inclusive movements of >> social resistance, rejuvenating unions and building a working class >> political challenge to neoliberalism. As we do this, we must fight for >> free, expanded and accessible public services. We must win decent wages and >> workers’ rights. We must struggle for income support systems that are based >> on adequacy, full entitlement and that are purged of intrusive rules and >> moral policing. We must infuse all of these movements and struggles with a >> sense of a very different kind of society from the capitalist one we are >> fighting. This doesn’t have the glitter of the dream of a progressive basic >> income but it does accept the reality that there is no social policy way >> around neoliberalism or a long and hard fight against it. The progressive >> welcome mat for basic income is a very big mistake. • >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CommonGood Mailingliste >> JPBerlin - Politischer Provider >> CommonGood(a)listi.jpberlin.de >> https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commongood >> >> > > > -- > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > http://commonstransition.org > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0