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

Fwd: [members] Re: Huge grant on commons collaborative economy + blockchain
by Michel Bauwens 10 Nov '17

10 Nov '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samer <samer(a)fdi.ucm.es> Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:37 AM Subject: [members] Re: Huge grant on commons collaborative economy + blockchain To: P2PValue Project Members List <members(a)lists.p2pvalue.eu> Dear all At last I launched publicly the project on blockchain + collaborative economy. You have the thread of tweets in: https://twitter.com/samerP2P/status/928820944705130498 (dissemination is appreciated!). The web of the project: http://p2pmodels.eu The Twitter of the project: http://twitter.com/p2pmod Thanks! Samer Hassan | @samerP2P <http://twitter.com/samerP2P> | http://samer.hassan.name Faculty Associate, Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University Associate Professor, Univ. Complutense de Madrid On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Samer <samer(a)fdi.ucm.es> wrote: > Dear P2Pvalue friends > > I want to share with you very good news, which some of you already know. I > received the ERC grant, the largest personal research grant in Europe (!). > That means I will have 1.5M€ to work on building blockchain-based > infrastructure for a commons-oriented collaborative economy. I find pretty > insane the whole thing, and I'm still overwhelmed with the idea! > > I want to thank the whole P2Pvalue community, as without you all this > wouldn't have been possible. P2Pvalue was my first European project, and it > has profoundly impacted me, changing the way I see research, academia and > activism. I have made great friends along the way, and I have now strong > bonds with many of you. P2Pvalue setted the base for my future research, > and this ERC grant is a continuation of the same research line, to continue > and deepen the vision we pushed forward. > > So, what's the fuzz about? The ERC > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Research_Council> is a EU funding > body whose task is basically to give the largest personal research grants > of the EU research program, to worlwide top researchers, doing projects > considered "frontier research" and which has potential high impact. Any > researcher in the world can apply, with the only requirement of being > willing to do the 5-year project in an European institution. The grant I > got is the Starting Grant, for "young" researchers, which gives 1.5M€. > Depending on your career stage, the grant gives different amounts (1.5M, 2M > and 2.5M). > > This project is an interdisciplinary project that aims to provide tools to > build new types of collaborative communities, which rely on a decentralized > infrastructure (using blockchain), and have both democratic governance, and > economic models where profits are distributed. We will also build tools > (and a testbed) to enable experimentation of new governance and economic > models over the blockchain. Here it is the abstract > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DCPOMZqqFN8HusHJcpPX9VwXoD0WJpinyFzIcF0…>, > let me know if you want more information, and feel free to share it with > whomever may be interested. > > As a form of giving forward to the P2Pvalue community, I offer myself to > help whomever of you would want to apply to the ERC grants. And when the > project starts in a few months, I will make all the proposal documents > public (and open licensed) with the hope of being useful for others, trying > to move away from the secretive approach around research proposals. Please > feel free to contact me for other forms I could be helpful to you! > > Cheers! > > -- > Samer | @samerP2P <http://twitter.com/samerP2P> | http://samer.hassan.name > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: [Commons Transition] Summer Of Commoning: a Tour Of French Communities and Projects
by Michel Bauwens 09 Nov '17

09 Nov '17

Stacco Troncoso writes: Our colleague Maïa Dereva from P2P Foundation France spent the summer visiting some of France’s most interesting commons oriented projects and communities. It’s a fun travelogue with a lot of interesting material. Check it out: http://commonstransition.org/summer-of-commoning/? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stacco Troncoso (Loomio) <notifications(a)loomio.org> Date: Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:13 PM Subject: [Commons Transition] Summer Of Commoning: a Tour Of French Communities and Projects To: michelsub2004(a)gmail.com [image: Stacco Troncoso] *Stacco Troncoso* started a thread: Summer Of Commoning: a Tour Of French Communities and Projects <https://www.loomio.org/ahoy/messages/PQk8m1PZGBlAg2qCzxgTLJOrwhUCRuYe/click…> Our colleague Maïa Dereva from P2P Foundation France spent the summer visiting some of France’s most interesting commons oriented projects and communities. It’s a fun travelogue with a lot of interesting material. Check it out: *Summer Of Commoning: a Tour Of French Communities and Projects <https://www.loomio.org/ahoy/messages/PQk8m1PZGBlAg2qCzxgTLJOrwhUCRuYe/click…>* — Reply to this email directly or view it on Loomio <https://www.loomio.org/ahoy/messages/PQk8m1PZGBlAg2qCzxgTLJOrwhUCRuYe/click…>. Change your email preferences <https://www.loomio.org/email_preferences?unsubscribe_token=UGJR4F8ir8sdmUk2…>. [image: Logo] -- 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: Civicist's First Post: Accumulating Data
by Michel Bauwens 09 Nov '17

09 Nov '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Civic Hall <info(a)civichall.org> Date: Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:39 PM Subject: Civicist's First Post: Accumulating Data To: Michel <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> November 9, 2017 <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> [image: First Post] <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> *Micah L. Sifry* *Accumulating Data* - *A rebellion in Facebookistan? Sean Parker,* the ex-founder of Napster who guided young *Mark Zuckerberg* through the early days of Facebook, tells <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> *Mike Allen* of Axios that the platform was built by "consciously" "exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology" because it was focused on figuring out "How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?'" Now Parker says he's a conscientious objector from social media and worries "what it's doing to our children's brains." - It's great to finally get such candor from a Facebook co-founder, especially one like Parker who has put a lot of his time and money into trying to build platforms for social good like Causes and Brigade. Maybe Parker, whose Facebook stock helped make him a billionaire, would like to put some money behind an effort to really force Facebook to change? - *Related: Jaron Lanier*, one of the pioneers of virtual reality, has a great way of explaining <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> why he avoids social media (to *Maureen Dowd *of The New York Times): "The popular [platforms] are designed for behavior modification. It’s like, why would you go sign up for an evil hypnotist who’s explicitly saying that his whole purpose is to get you to do things that people have paid him to get you to do, but he won’t tell you who they are?” Don't miss his explanation for the internet's obsession with cat videos… - If you've ever wondered how Facebook's People You May Know tool recommended that you connect with someone who you have an unusual or even secret connection to, one the company couldn't possibly have gotten from you, read *Kashmir Hill*'s article <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> for Gizmodo on how the social network collects "shadow profile information." Even non-users are in there. She writes: That accumulation of contact data from hundreds of people means that Facebook probably knows every address you’ve ever lived at, every email address you’ve ever used, every landline and cell phone number you’ve ever been associated with, all of your nicknames, any social network profiles associated with you, all your former instant message accounts, and anything else someone might have added about you to their phone book. As far as Facebook is concerned, none of that even counts as your own information. It belongs to the users who’ve uploaded it, and they’re the only ones with any control over it. - Facebook should spend less time trying to break into China, and more time addressing how its rapid spread in countries like Myanmar and Cambodia is harming local minority groups and journalism efforts, *Christina Larson* writes <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> for Foreign Policy magazine. - In Australia, Facebook is piloting an effort in partnership with the country's e-safety commissioner, asking its users to send it nude photos of themselves so that it can prevent the sharing of revenge porn, *Olivia Solon* reports <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> for The Guardian. The company would "hash" the images to prevent any unwanted sharing of images that closely match the originals, using a tool called PhotoDNA that was originally developed by Microsoft and is now used to clamp down on images of sexually abused children. - *Election news*: Nineteen Colorado cities and counties voted Tuesday to exempt themselves from a state law prohibiting municipal broadband services, expanding the total that have rejected the state law (which was passed with the backing of the big telcos), *Tamara Chuang* reports <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> for The Denver Post. In Fort Collins, voters also approved a measure that will allow the city to issue $150 in securities and debt to pursue the best way to offer high speed internet service to its residents. - *Twitter agonistes*: A month ago, Twitter CEO *Jack Dorsey* said, yet again, that the platform was committed to eliminating hate symbols, violent groups and tweets that glorify violence" but Tuesday the company gave <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> white supremacist *Jason Kessler*, the organizer of the August Charlottesville hate rally, a verified account. *Monique Judge*, a staff writer for the Root, is furious <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> and rightly so. - *Opposition watch: Joshua Brustein* reports <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> for Bloomberg on the ACLU's ongoing efforts to build its grassroots organizing arm, PeoplePower.org. - Writing for PhilanthropyWomen.org, Civic Hall Labs board member *Allison Fine* argues <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> that it's time for women to up how they play the game of money, influence and power. - *Support and wear your values! *Civic Hall organizer-in-residence *Sherry Hakimi* has launched GenEquality, her new nonprofit dedicated to activating gender equality with and for everyone. To kickstart their work, get a T-Shirt <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> with one of their brilliant slogans; sales are only open for the next two weeks. - Microsoft Civic Tech Fellow *Briana Vecchione*, a regular here at Civic Hall, reflects <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> on the end of her tenure. She's off to get a PhD, with a focus on fairness, accountability and transparency in machine learning. Best of luck! - *Apply*: The Council of Urban Professionals Fellows Program is looking for <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> "purpose-driven professionals of color" to participate in its one-year leadership development experience. Deadline is November 12. - *Your moment of zen*: Happy Birthday, Carl Sagan! <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> [image: Forward to a Friend] <http://us9.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294d4&id=1a9…> ------------------------------ [image: Civic Hall] <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> *Copyright © 2017 Civic Hall, All rights reserved.* 118 West 22nd Street, 12th Fl, New York, NY <https://maps.google.com/?q=118+West+22nd+Street,+12th+Fl,+New+York,+NY&entr…> unsubscribe <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294…> update subscription <https://civichall.us9.list-manage.com/profile?u=784ac4a90c07e1e7ebbf294d4&i…> You are receiving this email because you've subscribed to First Post -- 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: Christo
by Michel Bauwens 06 Nov '17

06 Nov '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Christopher M. Quigley <cmqesquire(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:43 PM Subject: Fwd: Christo To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> Michel, For your files. This story appeared today in the Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/paradise-papers-how-the- rich-and-powerful-hide-their-money-and-avoid-tax-1.3280699 Kind regards, *Christo* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher M. Quigley B.Sc. (Maj. Accounting), M.I.I. (Grad.), M.A., QFA. Qualified Financial Adviser. M: + 353-(0)-86-8118-600 -- 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 06 Nov '17

06 Nov '17

thanks so much again for Pat to link the past to the present and reconnecting the dots! On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Michael Lewis <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > I have been working on a response to this thread. Saw this thought today. > I speaks volumes to many of the issues we are grappling with. Thanks to > Kate Raworth. > > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/12/ > doughnut-growth-economics-book-economic-model?CMP=share_btn_fb > > On Oct 12, 2017, at 7:33 AM, Henry Tam <htam.global(a)talk21.com> wrote: > > I don’t think there is anything substantial I disagree with in what > Michael, Pat or Stephen have set out. On the margins, though, there are > four issues that those of us who want to keep advancing our shared agenda > may consider nailing down a bit more (esp in relation to what Colm raised > about the communication dimension of all this): > > [1] The Finitude Boundaries: between the (a) we’ve reached the limits of > resources and energy we can use on our planet, so we must use less overall > from now on; and (b) renewable solar & wind energy, exponentially rising > computer processing power, and new technology to recycle resources > indefinitely, mean that there is zero marginal cost to keep producing more; > where would we locate ourselves? Midway, much closer to (a), or closer to > (b) depending on technological development? > > [2] The ‘Trade-Off’ Dilemma: irrespective of [1] above, most would agree > that we need more of certain things (better access to quality food for > millions of undernourished people; medication for a wide range of > conditions; genuinely affordable housing for everyone, etc), and less of > others (addictive & harmful substances and activities; processes and > products that pollute the environment; etc). But what are the core > criteria for the trade-off? Do we share a moral/qualitative sense of > differentiating what should be increased/decreased? Or is it down to a > simple quantitative balance of – no more energy/resources to be committed > to producing anything, unless there is an equivalent amount of > energy/resources to be cut from current use/production? > > [3] The ‘Word’ Trap: arguably for many people, terms such as ‘growth’ and > ‘development’ have deep neoliberal connotations. But I’ve always > maintained if we let the other side slap their take on words as they > please, and we retreat from them, we’ll end up surrendering our > vocabulary. Just consider words like ‘freedom’, ‘family’, ‘values’, > ‘enterprise’, they have all been co-opted by the right to gloss over their > policies which actually go against all these things in countless ways. > Some people have come to view these words as inherently unsound. When > Thatcher introduced ‘Care in the Community’, and the ‘Community Charge’, > many started to dislike using the word, ‘community’; the same has happened > with words like ‘empowerment’. And Cameron tried to deploy ‘well-being’ as > a way of getting round the problem of rising poverty by arguing that the > key measure was ‘well-being’ and not financial disadvantage (but he was > sunk by the Brexit vote before he established another linguistic > takeover). All I’m saying is that we must watch the encroachment of words > by forces opposed to us, or else, we’d be left with words we might be > content to use, but words that do not connect with most people emotionally, > or even words that leave others feeling that those who use them are a breed > apart. > > [4] The Name Game: I noted the point about cooperative economics v > cooperative economy. But contrary to Bill Clinton, it’s not just the > economy. Pat has a point about the concept of ‘the Cooperative > Commonwealth’, or even more simply, why not let the focus be on ‘The > Cooperative Society’? > > Henry > > > *From: *Michael Lewis <Lewiscccr(a)shaw.ca> > *Date: *Wednesday, 11 October 2017 at 19:58 > *To: *Stephen Yeo <stephen.yeo(a)phonecoop.coop> > *Cc: *Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures(a)phonecoop.coop>, Michel Bauwens < > michel(a)p2pfoundation.net>, Henry Tam <htam.global(a)talk21.com>, John > Restakis <restakis1(a)gmail.com>, Mikeg <mikeg(a)athabascau.ca>, Tim Crabtree > <tim.crabtree(a)schumachercollege.org.uk>, Stacco Troncoso < > staccotroncoso(a)p2pfoundation.net>, Holemans Dirk <Dirk.Holemans(a)stad.gent>, > Colm <colm(a)solidarityeconomy.coop>, p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation@lists. > ourproject.org>, David Bollier <david(a)bollier.org>, Cilla Ross < > Cilla(a)co-op.ac.uk>, Kevin Flanagan <kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com>, Margie > Mendell <mendell(a)alcor.concordia.ca> > *Subject: *Re: A globa-local synthesis of a possible city-supported > public-commons partnership for climate- friendly and ecologically balanced > provisioning systems > > 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. > > ... > *Error! Filename not specified.* > *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: update on publications
by Michel Bauwens 02 Nov '17

02 Nov '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Katarzyna Gajewska <k.gajewska_comm(a)zoho.com> Date: Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:15 PM Subject: update on publications To: michel(a)p2pfoundation.net For updates on* my* publications: Katarzyna Gajewska - Independent Scholar <https://www.facebook.com/Katarzyna-Gajewska-Independent-Scholar-14245630944…> *Articles in refereed academic journals** since 2014 (selection)* Gajewska, Katarzyna (2017): Citizens as peers complementing government functions: The case of new governance modes in public housing in Warsaw, Poland, *Journal of* *Contemporary Central and Eastern Europ*e, DOI: 10.1080/25739638.2017.1363987 Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): Peer Production and Prosumerism as a Model for the Future Organization of General Interest Services Provision in Developed Countries Examples of Food Services Collectives. *World Future Review* 6(1): 29-39. Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work: Towards Prosumerist Services of General Interest, *Journal of Evolution and Technology *24(1): 104-112. *Conference papers since 2014* Gajewska, Katarzyna (2017): Future of work in basic income and post-employment system: scenario of peer production of the public health and a happier society. Conference Paper for 17th BIEN Congress: Implementing a Basic Income, Lisbon, 25-27 September 2017. * <http://www.rendimentobasico.pt/files/6215/0547/3667/Gajewska_Lisbon_paper_2…>http://www.rendimentobasico.pt/files/6215/0547/3667/Gajewska_Lisbon_paper_2… <http://www.rendimentobasico.pt/files/6215/0547/3667/Gajewska_Lisbon_paper_2…>* Also presented in Café Coop Grundeinkommen, Berlin on 24 October 2017. Gajewska, Katarzyna (2014): How Basic Income will transform Active Citizenship? A scenario of Political Participation beyond Delegation. Paper presented at 15th International Congress of the Basic Income Earth Network, Montréal, Quebec, June 27th to 29th. * <http://www.basicincome.org/bien/pdf/montreal2014/BIEN2014_Gajewska.pdf>http://www.basicincome.org/bien/pdf/montreal2014/BIEN2014_Gajewska.pdf <http://www.basicincome.org/bien/pdf/montreal2014/BIEN2014_Gajewska.pdf>* *Non-academic publications by topic (selection)* *Public Health* Gajewska, Katarzyna (14 February 2017): What would we eat if food and health were commons? – inspiration from indigenous populations. P2P Foundation Blog, https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/eat-food-health-commons- inspiration-indigenous-populations/2017/02/14 Gajewska, Katarzyna interviewed (January 2016) : Beyond temptation: Scholar discusses addiction and basic income – an interview: http://www.basicincome.org/news/2016/01/beyond-temptation-scholar-discusses- addiction-and-basic-income/ Gajewska, Katarzyna (September 2015) : UBI and alcoholism (or other substance addictions): exploring the argument against UBI: http://basicincome.org.uk/2015/09/ubi-and-alcoholism-or- other-substance-addictions-exploring-the-argument-against-ubi/ *Basic Income: public services and work organization* Gajewska, Katarzyna (9 June 2017): UBI needs peers (part three): Reconquering work – inspiration from People’s Potato. URL: http://basicincome.org/news/2017/06/ubi-needs-peers-part- three-reconquering-work-inspiration-peoples-potato/ . Katarzyna Gajewska (10 April 2017): UBI needs peers (PT 2): Re-imagine work organization, basicincome.org, *http://basicincome.org/news/2017/04/ubi-needs-peers-pt-2-re-imagine-work-organization/ <http://basicincome.org/news/2017/04/ubi-needs-peers-pt-2-re-imagine-work-or…>* Gajewska, Katarzyna (11 February 2017) UBI needs peers to control services of general interest (part one), *http://basicincome.org/news/2017/02/ubi-needs-peers-control-services-general-interest-part-one/ <http://basicincome.org/news/2017/02/ubi-needs-peers-control-services-genera…>* Gajewska, Katarzyna (30 June 2014): There is such a thing as a free lunch: Montreal Students Commoning and Peering food services. P2P Foundation Blog, http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/there-is-such-a-thing-as-a- free-lunch-montreal-students-commoning-and-peering-food-services/2014/06/30 Gajewska, Katarzyna (16 May 2014) : UBI and Housing Problem, Basic Income UK, * <http://www.basicincome.org.uk/ubi_power_relations_and_housing_problems>http://www.basicincome.org.uk/ubi_power_relations_and_housing_problems <http://www.basicincome.org.uk/ubi_power_relations_and_housing_problems>* *Public administration* Gajewska, Katarzyna (21 October 2013): The real life of law: Polish lessons on housing activism in the postcommunist context. LeftEast, * <http://www.criticatac.ro/lefteast/the-real-life-of-law-polish-lessons-on-ho…>http://www.criticatac.ro/lefteast/the-real-life-of-law-polish-lessons-on-ho… <http://www.criticatac.ro/lefteast/the-real-life-of-law-polish-lessons-on-ho…>* *Egalitarian communities* Gajewska, Katarzyna (9 October 2017): Raising children in egalitarian communities: An inspiration. Post-Growth Institute Blog *http://postgrowth.org/raising-children-in-egalitarian-communities-an-inspiration/ <http://postgrowth.org/raising-children-in-egalitarian-communities-an-inspir…>* Gajewska, Katarzyna (9 June 2017): Exploring Abundance as future: Questions inspired by the experience of an egalitarian community, Acorn. P2P Foundation Blog, *https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/exploring-abundance-future-questions-inspired-experience-egalitarian-community-acorn/2017/06/09 <https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/exploring-abundance-future-questions-inspire…>* Gajewska, Katarzyna (September 2016): Egalitarian alternative to the US mainstream: study of Acorn community in Virginia, US. Bronislaw Magazine, http://www.bronislawmag.com/78-16/kg_eco.php , reposted on PostGrowth.org: http://postgrowth.org/egalitarian-alternative-acorn-community/ Gajewska, Katarzyna (21 July 2016): An intentional egalitarian community as a small-scale implementation of Post-Capitalism. P2P Foundation Blog *https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/an-intentional-egalitarian-community-as-a-small-scale-implementation-of-postcapitalist-peer-production-model-of-economy-part-i-work-as-a-spontanous-voluntary-contribution/2014/12/27 <https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/an-intentional-egalitarian-community-as-a-sm…>* Gajewska, Katarzyna (10 January 2016): Case study: Creating use value while making a living in egalitarian communities. P2P Foundation Blog, http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/an-intentional-egalitarian- community-as-a-small-scale-implementation-of-postcapitalist-peer- production-model-of-economy-part-ii-creating-use-value- while-making-a-living/2016/01/10 Gajewska, Katarzyna (27 December 2014): An intentional egalitarian community as a small-scale implementation of postcapitalist, peer production model of economy. Part I : Work as a spontanous, voluntary contribution. P2P Foundation Blog, http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/ an-intentional-egalitarian-community-as-a-small-scale-implementation-of- postcapitalist-peer-production-model-of-economy-part-i-work-as-a-spontanous- voluntary-contribution/2014/12/27 Gajewska, Katarzyna (2017): Kommune Niederkaufungen – jak się żyje w 60-osobowej wspólnocie. [Kommune Niederkaufungen – on living in a 60_person commune], in quarterly *Nowy Obywatel* [New Citizen]. -- 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: Gates Foundation Grants Additional $6.4 million to Cornell’s Controversial Alliance for Science
by Michel Bauwens 02 Nov '17

02 Nov '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Latham <jrlatham(a)bioscienceresource.org> Date: Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:31 AM Subject: Gates Foundation Grants Additional $6.4 million to Cornell’s Controversial Alliance for Science To: bsr-PROJECT-ELIST1(a)gn.apc.org Dear Friends and Colleagues Published today in *Independent Science News* *Gates Foundation Grants Additional $6.4 million to Cornell’s Controversial Alliance for Science* by Jonathan Latham, PhD https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/gates-foundation-grants- additional-6-4million-to-cornells-controversial-alliance-for-science/ *Synopsis:* A new grant means that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has now given $12 million dollars to the Cornell Alliance for Science. But according to Claire Robinson of British group GMWatch, the Alliance "is a propaganda machine for the GMO and agrochemical industry”. Please share this article if you find it of value. yours sincerely Jonathan Jonathan Latham, PhD Executive Director The Bioscience Resource Project Ithaca, NY 14850 USA www.independentsciencenews.org and www.bioscienceresource.org jrlatham(a)bioscienceresource.org Skype: jonathanlatham2 Tel: 1-607-319-0279 Twitter and Facebook: @Biosrp “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”—Edward Bernays, Propaganda _______________________________________________ BSR-project-elist1 mailing list Info and options: https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/bsr-project- elist1 To unsubscribe, email bsr-project-elist1-unsubscribe(a)gn.apc.org -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Fwd: Christo - SCAMazon -
by Michel Bauwens 02 Nov '17

02 Nov '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Christopher M. Quigley <cmqesquire(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:47 AM Subject: Fwd: Christo - SCAMazon - To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> Michel, For your attention. Kind regards, Christopher ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- The Market Ticker ® <https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker> Commentary on The Capital Markets 2017-10-27 20:55 by Karl Denninger <https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?email-send=tickerguy> in Corruption <https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker&cat=Corruption> *, 5011 references <https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker&page=2#>* The United States of SCAmazon <https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232508> *[Comments enabled]* Amazon is now turning nearly a *negative 20%* margin on goods sold *not* including SG&A (that is, their sales and administrative expenses, such as the buildings and their employees) but *only *counting the cost of goods sold and their fulfillment (shipping and warehousing) expense. I wish to note that *generally *cross-subsidizing is legal *provided* it's not done for an unlawful purpose. For example it is *legal *to sell something as a "loss leader" to get people into your store in the hope that they will buy a profitable product or service (which makes enough profit to cover the cost of both), whether that other sale takes place at the same time or somewhere down the road. There's nothing illegal about using a "teaser" product to get people to shop with you, in short. *However, *if the *purpose* of said intentional selling at a loss *is to destroy competitors in your market *and you have the market power to do so *that's against the law *under the Sherman Act. In fact, *it's a felony.* <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2> *Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony,* and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Note that you *not* need to do this between two or more companies -- it is entirely illegal to do so *within the walls of one firm alone.* Corporations exist for *one purpose alone -- *to make a profit. This does not mean that every firm *succeeds *in making a profit, of course. In point of fact 8 out of 10 new firms fail within five years as they are unable to meet the essential test of "business" -- turning a profit. But look at this, which is an extension of the table I created earlier -- it goes back more than *five years* and is taken from the SEC's filings made by Amazon. Date Sales COGS Sales/Cog % Fulfillment Net % Profit 2013/Q1 13271 11801 12.46% 1796 -326 -2.46% 2013/Q2 12752 11209 13.77% 1837 -294 -2.31% 2013/Q3 13808 12366 11.66% 2034 -592 -4.29% 2013/Q4 21072 18806 12.05% 2918 -652 -3.09% 2014/Q1 15705 14055 11.74% 2317 -667 -4.25% 2014/Q2 15251 13399 13.82% 2382 -530 -3.48% 2014/Q3 16022 14627 9.54% 2643 -1248 -7.79% 2014/Q4 23102 20671 11.76% 3424 -993 -4.30% 2015/Q1 17084 15395 10.97% 2759 -1070 -6.26% 2015/Q2 17104 15160 12.82% 2876 -932 -5.45% 2015/Q3 18463 16755 10.19% 3230 -1522 -8.24% 2015/Q4 26618 24341 9.35% 4546 -2269 -8.52% 2016/Q1 20581 18866 9.09% 3687 -1972 -9.58% 2016/Q2 21116 19180 10.09% 3878 -1942 -9.20% 2016/Q3 22339 21260 5.08% 4335 -3256 -14.58% 2016/Q4 30629 28958 5.77% 5719 -4048 -13.22% 2017/Q1 23734 22440 5.77% 4697 -3403 -14.34% 2017/Q2 24745 23451 5.52% 5158 -3864 -15.62% 2017/Q3 28768 27549 4.42% 6420 -5201 -18.08% This is Amazon's sales of *goods* (*ed: Before attacking this table, read the italicized portion at the bottom.*) Their top-line margin (simply sales divided by cost-of-goods sold) has gone from 12.46% to 4.42%, a collapse of approximately *65%*, over that period of time. At the same time their operating loss *not including general and administrative costs, nor marketing -- *that is, *just* the cost of the product and "fulfillment", has gone from -2.46% to *-**18.08%*, an *explosion* of more than *730%*. The argument could be, of course, that there are "other than COGS" in that number. Well, ok, but read on below and then keep trying to find a scenario under which that claim fits for *material *components of that figure. You see, what's most-interesting in the table is that in approximately the third quarter of 2016 the company basically *gave up *and surrendered, essentially "throwing a switch", removing *500 basis points* of markup over cost in a *step function *that has no rational explanation among any change in the mix of products and services sold that occurred *at the same time*. I have not seen *one word* out of the analyst community (or the company for that matter) on this. In fact all the analysts have been "cheering" on the "acceleration" of the firm's prospects and results, *with the stock price going from $700 then to $1105 today.* Yet it appears that Amazon went from losing 10% on all the goods it sold *to 18% or nearly double the loss* during that same time period*. *The latest escalation in loss during the most-recent quarter is associated with ramping fulfillment expense (up *35%* in one quarter against a 16% sales increase) which the firm tried to "dull" by taking *another* 110 basis points off its "cost" markup! The company now, it appears, loses *approximately one dollar in five *whenever someone buys a "thing" from Amazon. *This is not some startup attempting to claw its way into relevance; it is a mature firm that employs tens of thousands of people and yet over the last five years it certainly appears it has been incapable of growing its sales of physical product without losing more and more money on each and every sale. Instead of finding itself with a near-zero stock price both analysts and the media trumpet how "successful" the firm is at being a retailer! Thanks in no small part to the fawning that the media and analyst community has served up upon a credulous public and their intentional burying of the truth the stock price has more than quadrupled from roughly $250 in early 2013 to over $1,100 today.* *It certainly appears that Amazon has "purchased" their increase in the gross sales of goods by literally giving product away at an ever-increasing loss -- a loss that has now reached nearly 20% across the entirety of nearly thirty billion dollars in goods sold last quarter.* Given the amount of data Amazon has and the utterly-stunning percentage of loss they're taking in that regard I'm willing to bet that a nicely-aimed subpoena would show that the company is *well aware *that the *only* way they could continue to grow sales to any material degree *is to displace existing retailers by intentionally selling at that ever-increasing loss* -- and that this is exactly what they're done. More to the point there is nothing else Amazon sells to consumers that can possibly make back the *$5.2 billion dollars* lost last quarter through this practice, so any argument that this tactic amounts to a "loss leader", given more than five years of history, is almost-certainly an easily-proved lie. Specifically, subscription services (including Prime membership fees, digital video and music, e-book, etc), many of which are sold to consumers, account for only $2.4 billion in gross receipts last quarter. Amazon does not break out the cost of those services and they have always refused to itemize them but even allowing for a very large (e.g. 50% or more) margin those services cannot possibly be profitably cross-subsidizing the loss on product sales; there simply isn't enough money received from them to do so. Therefore the *purpose* of such an increasing, five+ year *ramping *change in intentional operating losses in the company's product sales segment, assuming it is as it appears to be, has to be called into question. The *effect *of these actions, however, on other companies in the consumer product space is *not* open to question -- witness the *myriad *and *daily* mention of various retail channels and individual retailers being "Amazoned" in the media and on conference calls. In the latest point of attack which I assume the company will also apply this "strategy" to Amazon is apparently attempting to enter *wholesale prescription drug sales.* *It is perfectly legal to out-compete other sellers by doing more with less and thus having a lower cost structure in your business. This in turn allows you charge a lower price and gain market share. That, in fact, is exactly what innovation and competition (otherwise known as "productivity improvement" in the economic field) is supposed to do.* *It is not, however, legal to cross-subsidize the sales of your products with another, disjoint services business within your company so as to allow you to sell products at an intentional loss for the purpose of putting others out of business in an attempt to monopolize sales.* The financials disclose that the funding source for Amazon's practices in general is AWS service sales, a *completely *disjoint service (from the perspective of the consumer who has no reason to buy or use such a service) that happens to be quite profitable on a free cash-flow basis. Not one person within a state or the federal government has come after Amazon for this pattern of conduct in inquiry of *why* they are engaged in behavior that I can find *no *rational explanation for *within the boundaries of lawful and fair competition* as disclosed to both the public and regulators by their published financials and operating results. In fact, the pattern strongly suggests that Jeff Bezos and Amazon are using AWS as a vehicle to *intentionally *drive competitors out of the market in the sale of goods *not by out-competing them in cloud computing services* but instead by *destroying* competing retailers of goods through *rapidly-accelerating* cross-subsidization *and intentionally selling goods at a loss which they know their competitors cannot do.* I remind you again that *attempting *to monopolize trade is a *felony*. Just like the medical scams that are rampant in our country and have resulted in *ridiculous *ramps in health insurer and drug company stocks over the last few years, all of which are based on collusive behavior that I argue amount to extortion Amazon has been rewarded for the latest display of this behavior with more than $120 being added to the firm's stock price on Friday alone, a roughly 12% increase, and has been rewarded *enormously *over the last five years for same with a more than *400%* increase in the price of their stock. This has inured *personally *to the executives of the firm, including *most-specifically *their CEO, Jeff Bezos who has seen *his *personal wealth swell by *tens of billions of dollars* while his company *appears to have intentionally sold products at ever-increasing rates of loss *and destroyed the jobs of *tens if not hundreds of thousands of people *along with severely damaging or destroying myriad competing companies in the retail space. I argue the rampjob in the market in general through the mid 2000s happened *because of rank lawlessness, *just as *I know for a fact* it did in 1999 as I was running a firm in that space during the 1990s and saw both many competitors and suppliers present projections and claims that were fanciful fictions peddled not only by the firms themselves but by so-called "analysts" and the "media." Not long after *billions *of investor dollars were vaporized in the 2000 crash as those works of fiction were exposed. *Eight years later the market crashed in 2008 again **because it appeared the people who were scamming would go bankrupt and some might go to prison -- which, from the available evidence, it certainly appeared should happen.* The market *bottomed* and turned sharply upward *almost to the day *that *Congress* declared the blatantly illegal practice of *calling an asset valued at whatever you wanted it to be instead of what someone would pay for it *a lawful practice. In other words, *nobody was going to go broke *and nobody was going to jail either despite the fact that by then we had proof of those firm's practice of selling to customers things described as "good securities" *which their own employees were calling "vomit" *in "private" conversations among themselves. The price of vomit, of course, is actually negative (since you normally would have to pay someone to clean it up!) We have witnessed an unprecedented ramp in the market over the last few years and of those firms that have risen the most I can point to companies just like this one that have *no* rational legitimate explanation that I can logically put together for their business decisions and behavior. All explanations that I can analyze which are plausible in light of the public facts *devolve into screwing someone, *smug in the knowledge that *they won't be investigated and punished for doing so*, just as they weren't in 2009 and 2000. What's worse, every bit of this is happening with the *explicit *complicity and even *active promotion* of the media, so-called "analysts" who *intentionally* ignore *imploding* margins and treat them like they're "good news" along with our own Government, *including the President of the United States.* I hope you like getting screwed without being kissed first. *Editorial note: There have been raised questions about the "Cost of Sales" line and what part of services are in there. Here's the issue with that claim: When it comes to pure services there is no good bought first (in other words, cost of goods is zero because there are no goods.) Second, AWS is said to be 11% of sales (net-net.) Third, AWS has its operating expense broken out which are claimed to be $3.4 billion, all-in last quarter. Fourth, for "other services" note that their cost is in fact broken out (tech & content) and that's a high-margin business, as is AWS. Note that tech&content + G&A + other + marketing = $9.4 billion. Anyone who doesn't believe nearly all (if not all) of AWS's operating expense is absorbed in that $9.4 billion, along with the rest of the cost of other services that are sold (for which there are no goods purchased), has rocks in their head, given what AWS is (a pure service that consumes a shad-ton of electricity and tech expertise which is quite expensive to hire and feed, .vs. $10/hour warehouse peeps that are not.) Finally, as the son of a former CPA (now deceased) who was none-too-shy about his experience in this regard with me, never mind my observations with regard to WaMu's "accounting" in early 2007 in which they were paying dividends out of capitalized interest (an accounting entity that doesn't exist in actual cash, I note) let me simply observe that the art of accounting is that exactly how you silo various expense items is, shall we say, subject to quite a bit of "discretion" provided the amounts all total up at the bottom of the page -- and that such discretion is generally-speaking legal. In addition and perhaps of* *greatest* importance* I note that nobody ever hides good news, which means that if that cost item wasn't nearly all COGS it would be broken out in specific detail so that the "good news" would be apparent and on paper, but if it was broken out in such a fashion and later proved to be a lie there would be criminal sanction associated with doing so. Thus my commentary about a "well-placed" subpoena up above -- not that I believe we'll ever see one.* *Christopher Quigley* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher M. Quigley B.Sc. (Maj. Accounting), M.I.I. (Grad.), M.A., QFA. Qualified Financial Adviser. M: + 353-(0)-86-8118-600 -- 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: Europe’s quiet offensive against people helping refugees
by Michel Bauwens 01 Nov '17

01 Nov '17

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Frank Barat <russelltribunaluk(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:02 PM Subject: Europe’s quiet offensive against people helping refugees To: Frank Barat RToP <RussellTribunalUK(a)gmail.com> https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/opinion/ europes-quiet-offensive-against-people-helping-refugees/ Three years ago today (31 October), EU pressure on Italy forced the end of one the EU’s most successful humanitarian mission, ‘Mare Nostrum’, a search-and-rescue operation that in just one year brought 130,000 refugees <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/20/italy-ran-an-o…> safely to Europe’s shores. Ben Hayes and Frank Barat look back on three years since the end of Operation Mare Nostrum. *Frank Barat is coordinator of the War and Pacification program at the Transnational Institute. He has edited several books, the latest being Freedom is a Constant Struggle with Angela Davis. Ben Hayes is a fellow of the Transnational Institute <https://www.tni.org/en/bio/ben-hayes> and an independent researcher. <https://about.me/ben.hayes>* As the death toll mounted in the wake of this decision, including 1,200 victims <https://blamingtherescuers.org/> at sea five months later, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) stepped into the breach, launching their own rescue missions in a desperate attempt to save lives. Their efforts were part of a wave of compassion across Europe that year <https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/21-beautiful-moments-of-humanity-fro…>, as people organised convoys to refugee reception centers, warmly greeted arrivals at German train stations and lined highways to provide food and water to those making the arduous trek from war-torn regions of Syria and elsewhere. As European politicians retreated from their humanitarian obligations, its citizens demonstrated Europe’s tradition of compassion, solidarity and commitment to the Geneva Conventions. In his first State of the Union address <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5614_en.htm>, EU Commission President Juncker had even praised the volunteers as representative of the kind of “Europe I want to live in”. Yet just a few short years later, the Union looks very different, and Juncker is silent as those very same activists are now being treated as criminals rather than heroes. To cite just a few recent cases, in February 2017, a French shepherd, Cedric Herrou, from the Roya Valley, was condemned to an eight-month suspended prison sentence and a €3,000 fine for providing shelter to homeless migrants. In Denmark, Lisbeth Zornig Andersen was fined in 2016 for opening her house to refugee families with nowhere to live. In February 2017, on the border between Greece and Macedonia more than 60 volunteers from Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Austria, Spain, the UK, and the Czech Republic were subjected to a campaign of harassment and intimidation by armed police, including threats of arrest and arbitrary house searches <http://www.omct.org/human-rights-defenders/urgent-interventions/greece/2016…>. These cases are the tip of a particularly unpleasant iceberg that should shame Europe’s leaders. It is important to stress that these cases are both a product and violation of EU law. The 2002 Directive on the facilitation of illegal entry and residence, which is aimed at organised people traffickers, contains a non-binding humanitarian exemption that is supposed to ensure that such activities are excluded from its scope. Fifteen years later, however, two-thirds of EU member states now apply the law but not the exemption, paving the way <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011L0036>for the widespread criminalisation of refugee solidarity and activism. These laws are supplemented by a raft of administrative procedures that hinder NGO operations or further restrict the scope for refugee assistance. The Netherlands requires people to report undocumented migrants. Cyprus forbids refugee groups from working with pro bono lawyers. Croatia moved recently to criminalise the feeding of ‘illegal’ migrants. This attack on human rights defenders and flagrant disregard for the EU’s international humanitarian law and human rights obligations is not an aberration but a product of EU policy and practice. The EU’s Border and Coastguard Agency (ECBG, formally known as Frontex) is guilty of smearing NGO search-and-rescue boats by implying their collusion with traffickers and smugglers, despite an Italian Senate Committee enquiry of April this year finding no evidence no such links. These smears prefaced a wider attack on those NGOs operating in the Mediterranean by an unholy alliance of state agencies and far right activists. Search-and-rescue missions, conducted by household names like *Medicins Sans Frontieres* and *Save the Children* as well as new organisations that emerged in response to the humanitarian crisis, have been relentlessly targeted. In Greece, three Spanish firemen, on a rescue mission for the *Proem-Aid*association, were arrested at sea and detained for 60 hours before being bailed on charges of human trafficking. In Italy, undercover intelligence agents have infiltrated NGOs and operated covertly on search-and-rescue boats. Several vessels have been now been seized pending further investigations. Coupled with a ‘voluntary’ Code of Conduct which all but ended the capacity for the NGOs to operate independently, these actions have had the desired effect of stopping the rescue missions altogether. The manufactured narrative around NGOs and trafficking has also been seized upon by populists and fascists, such as the crowd-funded ‘Defend Europe’ boat launched in July with the aim of actively disrupting the humanitarian NGOs. While they abandoned their mission because of disruption by antifascists, they were to claim success by arguing that that the Italian and Libyan governments had done the job for them: “Only two months ago, many NGOs sailed in front of the Libyan coasts, like cabs waiting for customers. Today, there is only one.” The unleashing of these forces has led to much wider attacks on Italian NGOs that are reminiscent of the scapegoating and demonisation of George Soros <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/george-soros-upset-by-anti-se…> in Hungary. The criminalisation of refugee solidarity is the latest salvo in an EU policy long predicated on stopping refugees reaching in EU states at any cost, be that by letting them drown, confining them to camps in Turkey, or paying brutal Libyan militiamen to prevent their departure. The targeting of activists who oppose these policies and want to live in the same kind of Europe as Jean-Claude Juncker is about removing witnesses to what is happening and dissuading other European citizens that more humane policies are possible. This dismembering of Europe’s values and principles has turned the Mediterranean into a mass grave in the name of creating a ‘deterrent’ effect. Three years ago, Europe’s citizens stepped in where its leaders failed – showing the compassion and solidarity upon which the EU is founded. It is time for Europe’s politicians to show the same courage and end a duplicitous policy capable only of piling misery of some of the world’s most vulnerable people. *The Transnational Institute will explore these issues further in a forthcoming paper on criminalisation of solidarity with refugees.* *"Freedom is a constant struggle"* Out Now! Order here <http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Freedom-Is-a-Constant-Struggle> Follow on Facebook here <https://www.facebook.com/angeladavisfreedom> -- 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