January 2022 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

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

10 Mar '26

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

3 4

Fwd: 📄 "Cosmolocalism: Understanding the Transitional Dynamics towards Post-Capitalism" by Alexandros Schismenos
by Michel Bauwens 13 Jan '22

13 Jan '22

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: PDF By Alexandros Schismenos <updates(a)academia-mail.com> Date: Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:00 AM Subject: 📄 "Cosmolocalism: Understanding the Transitional Dynamics towards Post-Capitalism" by Alexandros Schismenos To: <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> [image: Academia.edu] <https://www.academia.edu/t/DGkU-P5Y3rjH-yZhPR/> ------------------------------ You wrote the paper A Commons-Based Peer To Peer Path to Post-Capitalism : An Interview with <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/UFl5WWV3ZjZFZVFqbDhxZUFlVXFjZWlseExlajJUZj…>. A related paper is available on Academia. Cosmolocalism: Understanding the Transitional Dynamics towards Post-Capitalism <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> [image: Paper Thumbnail] <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> [image: Author Photo] Alexandros Schismenos <https://auth.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPW…> 2020, Triple-C 62 Views View PDF ▸ <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> Download PDF ⬇ <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> ABSTRACT Over the last decades, the proliferation of ICTs and capitalist markets has created a new social-historical reality for communication, production and societal organisation, while social inequality has deepened. In this context, alternative forms of organisation based on the commons have emerged, challenging the core... read more... <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> Your recent reading history: Artificial General Intelligence and Creative Economy <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> - Konstantinos I Kotis Beyond Modernism and Postmodernism: The Narrative of Re-embodiments, <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> - Arran Gare Paradoxical empowerment of <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> - Serge Proulx Reflections on the Reflexive Universe <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> - Seth Miller The Commodification of the Couch: A Dialectical Analysis of Hospitality Exchange Networks <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> - Simon Schöpf Metapolitics of the Noosphere <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> - Dr. William Irwin Thompson Design for Sustainable Communities – An Integral Perspective <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> - Paul Cohen Conflicts in common(s) ? Radical Democracy and the Governance of the Commons. <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> - Martin Deleixhe Commons Against Capitalism (2015) <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> - Tero Toivanen Who is the author? Sampling/remixing/open source <https://www.academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWX…> - Lev Manovich Want fewer recommendations like this one? <https://academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWXV0Zj…> ------------------------------ <https://academia.app.link/install?keypass=SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhc…> 580 California St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA, 94104 Unsubscribe <https://academia.edu/keypass/SS81cml2VFFLU3JEMm9ZRk1wTUF1eXVhcTNubkpPWXV0Zj…> Privacy Policy <https://www.academia.edu/t/DGkU-P5Y3rjH-yZhPR/privacy> Terms of Service <https://www.academia.edu/t/DGkU-P5Y3rjH-yZhPR/terms> © 2022 Academia -- 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: Technology and the Future (GTN Discussions)
by Michel Bauwens 04 Jan '22

04 Jan '22

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork(a)greattransition.org> Date: Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 11:28 PM Subject: Technology and the Future (GTN Discussions) To: Great Transition Network <gtnmembers(a)greattransition.org> >From Pierre Calame [p.calame(a)fph.ch] ---------------------------------------------------------- [Moderator's Note: The last day for comments is TODAY: MONDAY, JANUARY 3. Looking forward to your contributions! - JC] I fully agree with the analysis of Michel Bauwens. Blockchain technology applied to specific ledgers is not per se energy-intensive. There is actually a first crucial application of it: the ecological footprint of global supply chains. Such ledgers are essential for creating the accounting system of carbon dioxide equivalent individual quotas, which are the logical consequence of an obligation to fight global warming. You can find the description or the system at: blog.pierre-calame.fr/public/quotas_carbone_EN.pdf . In my opinion, pushing for the international endorsement of such a system should even be a crucial priority for GTI. Yours, Pierre Pierre Calame **************************************************** Le 30/12/2021 à 19:43, Great Transition Network a écrit : >From Michel Bauwens [michelsub2004(a)gmail.com] ------------------------------ Great Transition Initiative: Filling in the Commons Gap Michel Bauwens Whether we believe that technology itself has its own determinism or that it is shaped by material interests, there is always a residue of human agency to transform technological tools in the service of social change. This is what we propose to do here with perhaps the most unlikely candidate: the bitcoin-generated blockchain. Our contention is that the blockchain can be used as an essential tool to construct the next cyber-physical infrastructure that will allow humanity to produce for its own needs, while respecting the material and ecological planetary boundaries, and its interdependency with the web of life. Bitcoin is the recipient of many legitimate critiques by progressives. It was designed with Austrian economics and anarcho-capitalist values in mind, is very energy-intensive in its production, and has a very unequal distribution in terms of income and property, a distribution that is not accidental in view of the ‘oligarchic protocols’ that it has chosen as incentives for its stakeholders. [1] But is it important to distinguish the existence of a global distributed ledger, i.e., an open and interoperable accounting and logistical system that can be used to coordinate production on a global scale, from its first iteration as the ledger of Bitcoin. We now have different post-blockchain distributed ledgers that attest to this, and a number of these ledger projects are operated not according to libertarian values and rules, but by integrating the insights of Elinor Ostrom. [2] The question to answer is the following: what becomes possible once we have such technology at our disposal? My contention is that an interoperable blockchain becomes the vehicle for global mutual coordination of human production within planetary boundaries. A ledger is first and most an accounting tool, recording transactions. This is obviously not trivial: the first accounting systems in Sumer, with temple administrations recording the flow of grain and debts, stand for the origins of the state apparatuses; the double entry accounting system for private competitive units created by a Franciscan monk Luca Pacioli in the Italian city-states stood for the emergence of private forms of capitalism which would eventually become dominant. Blockchain ledgers have currently inaugurated various forms of post-capitalist accounting which seem to be just as non-trivial: • Contributory accounting, which can record, value, and recompense non-commodified forms of contributions to ecosystems and networks, already signify the recognition of value outside the commodity form; it is a crucial tool signifying a transition to contributory regimes of value [3] • Flow accounting, such as the Resource-Events-Agents software, allows every transaction to be recorded as an event in a network, and has abandoned double entry; it is an accounting for externality-aware ecosystems, not externality-ignoring closed entities. • Thermodynamic accounting directly records the flow of matter and energy into an accounting system, such as the systems pioneered by R30.org and the Global Commons Alliance, who use a ‘global thresholds and allocations’ approach to determine the maximum allowed flow in particular contexts. These ledgers are linked to tokens and intelligent current-sees which can allow for expanded and complex value regimes. [4] We now have access to local currencies, which can protect and regulate local economies and domain-specific intelligent monies such as SolarCoin generated by renewable energy or FishCoin which regulates the maximum volumes for the fishing industry. Local-geographic currencies, domain-specific virtual currencies, and transformed nation-state currencies can co-exist in a regime of monetary biodiversity that is both socially aware, ecologically aware, and a global regulatory currency that insures the economy stays within agreed upon ecological limits. With these tools at hand, integrated in a cosmo-global cooperative ledger, it becomes possible to transcend the violent competition between economic coordination systems that plagued the twentieth century. Here is what is envisageable: - The primary layer of human cooperation becomes ‘stigmergy’, the gift of the commons economy that has been operating successfully within the open-source economy for two dozen years by now: open and transparent systems allow participating producers to freely coordinate their work in view of the needs and possibilities of the ecosystem as a whole, without needing central command. Collective agreements then result from negotiated coordination. The agents of this are the contributive communities, and the for-benefit associations that maintain their infrastructure of cooperation. In this particular context, the blockchain economy is best seen as an extension of this movement: it enables the creation of open and global coordination systems, in which a substantial amount of the income is devoted to paying open-source developers. - The secondary layer consists of the generative market exchange mechanisms, post-capitalist market forms that regulate genuine exchange, within planetary limits; this is necessary for the flow of all the resources that need investment and need to be renewed. The agents for this are generative and cooperative market entities that add value to the commons economy. Commons Stack, focusing on commons regulations, and RadicalXchange, focusing on the creation of generative market systems, are among the initiatives dedicated to this. - The third layer is the planning layer. This is where thermodynamic accounting systems come in, by rendering visible the flows of matter and energy in a economic system, and where the ruleset of ‘global thresholds and allocations’, allows for context-specific ‘maximums.’ Of course, to a sceptic, the description so far will sound utopian. What could be the agent of sufficient change that would lead to the adoption of such a global infrastructure? Our answer is that the commoners are the agents of such a change, following cosmo-local models, which we see as the ‘third possible future’ for humankind. [5] The first future is the continuation of multicultural neoliberalism, from now on under the hegemony of the Successor Ideology, as proposed by the World Economic Forum. [6] It is a world run by public-private partnerships and natural asset investment vehicles, with weak national governments, strong transnational capital, and instrumentalized global NGOs. Its political preference is for alliances of the urban cognitive elites, organized under group allocation rules, which can be used to manage the unruly popular classes. The second model is protectionist retreat, which aims for re-strengthening sovereign nation-states. creating solidaristic citizen-based class coalitions internally, and attempts to control global flows of capital and labor to benefit a competitive nation. The danger of the second model is armed confrontation between states aiming for control of scarce resources. The third model is the cosmo-local model: in this model, we aim for a subsidiarity of material production (intelligent relocalization), based on distributed manufacturing models, producing on demand using the maximum amount of biodegradable material. In such a model, local production units are linked to global open design communities, which we call ‘protocol cooperatives.’ The partner state concept stands for a ‘community state’ that enables and empowers individual and collective autonomy at the local scale, guarantees the equality of contributory capacity, using multi-stakeholder commons institutions, following the quintuple helix governance model pioneered for the Italian urban commons. Local alliances of public authorities, the commercial sector, the formal civil society and research organizations support commons-centric public initiatives; they are mirrored, in a fractal way, by similar transnational institutions that support a domain-specific commons institutions, which we call the ‘magisteria of the commons’. We see these networked workers, organized in common third spaces, i.e., revamped makerspaces, as both local agents, rooted in their communities, and as agents that are linked to the global open design communities which are the vehicle of their social and technical knowledge. Barring or awaiting the emergence of political forces which can represent this cosmo-local order, the priority is to network the productive nodes, and to construct the necessary transnational layer which can represent the counterforce to transnational capital. Partner state organizations are a vital link to facilitate the connection of local producers to the global streams of shared knowledge, and the new domain-specific value streams. [7] [1] To see how this differs from a commons-centric design, see the comparison table: Contrasting the Propertarian Blockchain with Commons-Based Ledger Systems, docs.google.com/document/d/1RQXhk83jrRTuWXKzPC6R5pxcbm-hqA-WiRgsfjU9NIs/edi… [2] The Commons Stack project, part of the Crypto Commons Alliance, is exemplary in this regard. See commonsstack.org/ [3] The P2P Value project found that 75% of the 300 studied peer production projects were using, experimenting or researching such accounting conventions and tools, wiki.p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Value [4] The concept is from Arthur Brock, founder of the Holochain post-blockchain ledger, a open and p2p-based interoperable ledger system that doesn’t require a world computer but is based on the free interconnection of autonomous ledgers. [5] Cosmo-local production models are described in a new book by the P2P Foundation, which contains 40 case studies of initiatives combining local material production with globally shared open designs: The Cosmolocal Reader. Ed. José Ramos, Sharon Ede, Michel Bauwens and Gien Wong. P2P Foundation, 2021, clreader.net/ [6] See wesleyyang.substack.com/p/welcome-to-year-zero [7] P2P Accounting for Planetary Survival: Towards a P2P Infrastructure for a Socially Just Circular Society. By Michel Bauwens and Alex Pazaitis. Foreword by Kate Raworth. P2P Foundation, June 2019. (Subtitle: How shared perma-circular supply chains, post-blockchain distributed ledgers, protocol cooperatives, and three new forms of post-capitalist accounting, could very well save the planet.), commonstransition.org/p2p-accounting-for-planetary-survival/ ******************************************************************* December 1, 2021 Dear GTN: Our December discussion—*Technology and the Future*—takes up a critical question: how might emerging technologies shape—and be shaped by—the global transition? Let us approach this knotty question at both concrete and conceptual levels: weighing the implications of *specific technologies *for a GT and establishing an adequate* theoretical framework* for making sense of the interplay between technology and society. *Specific Technologies* An astonishing array of potentially disruptive creations looms on the horizon. *In this pivotal moment, what influence, for better or worse, might vanguard technologies have on the global trajectory <https://greattransition.org/explore/scenarios> ? Which applications are inherently discordant with a Great Transition and should be resisted outright? Which have a legitimate place, in some form, in a Great Transition world and the struggle to get there? * Under prevailing Conventional World conditions, social change movements can resist specific technologies outright, advocate policies to regulate them, or, by ignoring them, cede the field to business-as-usual forces. Not surprisingly, given the diversity of environmental and social advocacy, controversy rages about such technologies as bioengineering, artificial intelligence, and the Internet. To structure our discussion of this sprawling topic, I invite you to focus on the prospects of key technologies in three arenas: *Bioengineering*: Will there be GMOs in a Great Transition? Surely we need to move from industrial agriculture to an agro-ecological model, but can this meet the nutritional needs of a growing population? Skeptics see a role for regulated GMOs, while others passionately disagree. *Artificial intelligence*: Will AI induce painful unemployment in the near term? By reducing socially necessary labor time, might it be the precondition for a post-scarcity society? What would a politically progressive AI strategy look like that balances such concerns? *Digital economy*: Consider blockchains and cryptocurrency, for example. Do they merely foreshadow new financial and environmental burdens, or hold the promise, as some claim, of hastening a post-capitalist economy? Can social movements begin to coopt elements of platform capitalism to grow the infrastructure of platform cooperativism? Please reflect on how different institutional contexts might shape the form each technology assumes and the function it plays, a consideration which segues into the second level of our discussion. *Theoretical Framework* *How should we think about the interplay between technological and social evolution? Does technology drive history? Or the reverse? Or perhaps the logic of discovery defines a channel of possibilities for social evolution that delimits the scope for human agency?* Ask a professional futurologist (or a wonderstruck layman) what our grandchildren’s world will look like, and odds are you’ll hear a story about how disruptive technology inexorably will revolutionize economies and everyday life. For many, *technological determinism*—the idea that technology drives history—is a seductive lure that offers a through-line for explaining social change. We can resist, surrender, or adapt to the robots (and much else), but they are coming! But in downplaying the other side of the equation—the ways history drives technology—technological determinism is reductive and simplistic. The robots and their ilk will not be dropped from the sky by technology gods; they will carry characteristics and functions congruent with the societies that spawn them. By insisting that the internal logic of innovation drives social evolution, technological determinism reverses that paternity. If technology marches to the beat of its own drum, we can love it (technophilia) or hate it (technophobia) but not alter its essence. Both the techno-optimist gushing about cool gadgets and the techno-pessimist indicting the machine let the reigning political economy off the hook. By contrast, the *social construction of technology* school rejects the idea of technology as an autonomous force, instead understanding it as embedded in society and subject to its choices. Social constructionism yields academic and policy insight into the regulation and management of R&D, but its granular focus cannot guide us in the big-picture challenge of shaping the social-technological culture of the future. Moreover, social constructionism’s bias—history drives technology—obscures the objective constraints imposed by the state of technology and the laws of nature. What are the contours of a systemic understanding of the technology-society dialectic? An adequate framework recognizes that technological and social conditions co-evolve at different spatial scales influenced by strengthening global forces. In stable times, the technological variants that prevail and become entrenched are those compatible with dominant interests and institutions. However, at pivotal moments of historical change like the present, techno-social systems can branch in myriad directions as disruptive innovations contribute to the stress on existing structures, helping to trigger and shape what comes next. In our time of transformation, emergent technologies powerfully affect all future trajectories, whether of Conventional Worlds, Barbarization, or Great Transition varieties. The forms they assume and the roles they play are subject to choices yet to be made and struggles yet to be waged. If it is true that the robots will look like us, the prior question remains: what will we look like? Technology scenarios are subplots of the larger story depicted in the alternative narratives of the future. With this as background for your critique and elaboration, I invite your thoughts on *Technology and the Future*, whether focused on specific innovations or on theoretical considerations. The comment period will go through *Monday, January 3*. Succinct remarks are welcome, as are extended reflections (capped at 1,200 words, please). Over to you, Paul Paul Raskin GTI Director ---------------------------------------------------------- To submit a comment for this GTN discussion, click reply or send it to jcohn(a)tellus.org. *Expect a delay between the submission and posting.* You can review the discussion here <https://greattransition.org/gtn-discussions/technology-and-the-future#3535>, where you can also submit your comment by replying to any previously posted comment. -- P2P Foundation: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: ; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Curation of news on p2p/commons developments: https://www.facebook.com/groups/p2p.open/

1 0

Fwd: FAIR Weekly Roundup: mobilizing for anti-racism
by Michel Bauwens 03 Jan '22

03 Jan '22

one of the best newsletters to keep up with the anti-racist (which now must include, anti-woke, struggles) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: FAIR Substack <fairforall+fair-weekly-roundup(a)substack.com> Date: Sun, Jan 2, 2022 at 10:59 PM Subject: FAIR Weekly Roundup To: <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Last week Benjamin Morley wrote a piece for our Substack about his personal run-ins with race essentialist diversity, Equity, and inclusion trainings while working for the Vermont’s Department of Aging and Independent Living. Morley describes the training he and others experienced in great detail: ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVkluPokAQhX-NvEn6ivDAgxlHo1l0dmeis_tC-l…> FAIR Weekly Roundup <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVkluPokAQhX-NvEn6ivDAgxlHo1l0dmeis_tC-l…>January 2nd, 2022 <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxNUMlyhCAQ_ZrhFqtpwOXAIZf8hoXSOCQIFmKm_P…> FAIR <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxNUMlyhCAQ_ZrhFqtpwOXAIZf8hoXSOCQIFmKm_P…> Jan 2 <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUttu4jAQ_Rry1sh2nEAe8kBL2QYVEFu2wL5Ejj…> [image: Comment] <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUstu4jAU_RqyI_IjzmORBSoFgSbQmVbQmU3k2B…> [image: Share] <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVkstu2zAQRb_G2tngQ9RjoYURx4GNyk6bwEm7ES…> <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUl2PpSAM_TXXNw2fig88TDaZv2EKVC87Ci7g3H…> <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsmOpDAM_ZriBsqecMihNVL_BspiqExDwiShq5…> Last week, Benjamin Morley wrote a piece for our *Fair for all* Substack about his personal run-ins with race essentialist diversity, equity, and inclusion trainings while working for Vermont’s Department of Aging and Independent Living. Morley describes the training he and others experienced in detail: The trainers attempted to impose their ideology on us by changing our perceptions and values related to areas such as equity, privilege, racism, identity, family, politics, and spiritual beliefs. They also sought to alter our self-perception based on which identity groups we were members of, and how this group membership affected our status in American society. The facilitator tried to normalize this new philosophy by encouraging us to completely re-evaluate our individual identities, part of what she referred to as “doing the work.” Morley and others were accused of racism, and he remembers witnessing the “fear, sadness, and guilt” the training instilled in his coworkers. However, this was interpreted by the trainers as merely a symptom of “doing the work” that’s necessary to combat “whiteness” and systemic racism. When Morely decided to voice his misgivings about the training, he discovered that he was indeed not alone—many of his coworkers felt the same way, but were simply too afraid to to speak up. Morely believes this dynamic is common, and hopes his story encourages more people to start speaking up. *Read the full article on our Substack here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVkMtuhSAQhp_msNMAgpcFi276GmaU0UOLYGDsiW…>.* ------------------------------ <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsuO5CAM_JrOLRHPQA4cRivNb0Q8TJqdBLJApi…> <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsuO5CAM_JrOLRHPQA4cRivNb0Q8TJqdBLJApi…> For *BBC News*, FAIR Advisor Steven Pinker shared examples from his “Think with Pinker” series to educate readers about three ways they can “be more rational” in 2022. According to Pinker, one way we can all start being more rational in the New Year is by examining our decision process when making sacrifices in the present in order to reap larger rewards in the future. Pinker explains that this should not be viewed as a strict either/or decision because, given our short lives, it is rational to enjoy the present. Pinker writes: Maybe the promised payoff will never arrive, like when a pension fund goes bust. And after all, you're only young once. It makes no sense to save up for decades to buy an expensive sound system at an age when you can no longer hear the difference. So our problem is not that we discount the future, but that we discount it too steeply. We eat, drink and make merry as if we'll be dead in only a few years. And we discount the future myopically. We know at some point we should start saving for a rainy day, but the money we have now burns a hole in our pocket. *Read the full article here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlUMGOhSAM_JrHbU1BUDxw2Mv-BkGoPnYRDOAa_3…>.* <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsuu3CAM_ZrJLhHPQBYsrq7U34h4mAy9CaRA7j…> On her Substack *Common Sense*, FAIR Advisor Bari Weiss asked top intellectuals and other people she admires what they changed their minds about in the last year. To start off, Weiss described something major she had changed her mind about in 2021. A year ago, I still believed very much that the best use of my energy was to try to work to shore up the old institutions from the inside. I was wrong. My readers know: This newsletter would not exist if I hadn’t changed my mind. And once I changed my mind, once I stopped trying to repair a decayed thing from within and set out to build something new, I was suddenly waking up peppy at 5 a.m., no alarm needed. I think that’s because changing your mind is a hopeful act. It means you think there’s a better path forward. It means you’re not done becoming. Those responding to the question include NBA basketball player Enes Kanter Freedom on his name change, Ayaan Hirsi Ali on liberalism, Tim Urban on religion, and others thinkers such as Nellie Bowles, Ross Douthat, Chloé Valdary, Karol Markowicz, and Balaji Srinivasan. *Read the full article here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVkM1uhSAQhZ_mstMAAlcXLLrpa5gBRqVFMIA1vn…>.* <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsmO5CAM_ZrKLRFrIAcOrZH6NyIWk2I6gQyQrs…> For the *Washington Examiner*, FAIR Advisor Glenn Loury published a lecture he delivered as part of the Benson Center Lecture Series at the University of Colorado, Boulder, on February 8th, 2021. The lecture covered seven “unspeakable truths about racial inequality in America.” The first “unspeakable truth” according to Loury is that “downplaying behavioral disparities by race is actually a ‘bluff.’” Loury sates: Activists on the Left of American politics claim that “white supremacy,” “implicit bias,” and old-fashioned “anti-black racism” are sufficient to account for black disadvantage. But this is a bluff that relies on “cancel culture” to be sustained. Those making such arguments are, in effect, daring you to disagree with them. They are threatening to “cancel” you if you do not accept their account. Loury argues that many popular narratives surrounding racial disparities in mass incarceration, educational achievement, and wealth are also largely sustained by this “bluff.” *Read the other six “unspeakable truths” here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJw1kc2SpSAMhZ_mstMCRK93waI38xpWhKh0Izj8tO…>.* <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsuu3CAM_ZrJLhHPAIssrq7U34gMOBl6k5ACud…> For *UnHerd*, FAIR Advisor Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote about the deep political divides in the United States and how the extreme tribal nature of our politics could potentially lead us “close to the precipice of serious destabilisation.” Ali recounted a lunch conversation with a friend, which turned into an all-out attempt by her friend to convert her politically. Her friend’s disposition during this conversation was familiar to Ali, who grew up in Somalia during a time of intense tribal conflict between clans. According to Ali, two things stood out; the first being “an almost blind hatred of a particular group,” and the second being “the use of deeply personal attacks on individual researchers to justify that hatred.” Ali explains that: In tribal communities, neutral institutions of civil society that Westerners take for granted—such as the police, impartial courts, and the rule of law—simply do not, and cannot, exist. In such societies, everything is tribalised, and the task of building civic institutions is laden with difficulties. While Ali has and continues to be strong critic of Left-wing identity politics, she recognizes that “these tribal quirks run deep on both sides of the aisle,” citing election fraud conspiracies as a product of Right-wing tribalism. But rather than each party pointing their fingers across the aisle to justify their own tribal tendencies, Ali believes that moderates on all sides need to “stand up” and “resist the tribal impulse that often grows in reaction to the other side’s excesses.” *Read the full article here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkE1uxCAMhU8z7BIBgfwsWHTTa0QQnAktgQicjn…>.* ------------------------------ <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsuu3CAM_ZqbXSLeIQsWV5X6G5EBk6E3CSmQO5…> <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsuunDAM_ZphB8o7YZHFVaX-BsrDYXIvEJqEO6…> For *UnHerd*, Paul Marshall asked “is liberalism in retreat?” and traces the origins and understanding of “liberalism” through the teachings of Christianity and the Enlightenment. According to Marshall, the problem currently afflicting the West “is not that liberalism has passed its sell-by date,” but rather that liberalism has “lost its moorings.” Marshall believes that conflicts between Christian philosophy and “Enlightenment Liberalism” on matters relating to belief in human perfectibility, morality, meaning and virtue, and knowledge “have led to a corruption of liberalism at its source.” For Progressives, humankind’s moral progress is on a perpetual upward curve in parallel with technological progress. The history of the 20th century does not give much support to this conceit—it would be fairer to say that technology simply amplifies the expression of our moral fallibility. According to Marshall, current attacks on our oldest and most foundational freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom to assemble requires Classical liberals “to unite and stand up for their tradition” and that doing so “has never been so relevant.” *Read the full article here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkMuOhCAQRb-m2bUBRMQFi9nMbxgepTKDYAC749…>.* <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUl2PpSAM_TXXNw2fig88TCbZv2EKFC8zKi7g3H…> Glenn Greenwald wrote an article for his Substack bringing attention to a New York State Department of Health policy that includes race as a “risk factor” when determining who to prioritize for receiving limited doses of life-saving medicine for COVID-19, claiming that “longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19” for non-whites. However, upon further examination, Greenwald discovered that these “systemic health inequities” are not due to race per se, but rather due to correlated factors such as vaccination status, obesity rates, prevalence of diabetes, and other factors. According to Greenwald: In liberal discourse, treating the unvaccinated as immoral monsters has become common. But unlike liberal media outlets, the CDC cannot ignore the fact that vaccination rates are lower among Black people than other racial groups. They have to grapple with that fact. And they do so by denying the universal applicability of the vaccine and claiming—with no data cited—that the reason for this high rate of vaccine hesitancy or refusal among Black Americans is racism and structural inequities rather than agency and choice. *Read the full article here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVkMGOhCAMhp9muGkAwcEDh73sa5gK1WEHwQCu8e…>.* <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUl2PpSAM_TXXNw0gXz7wMJlk_4YpUL3MqLiAc9…> For *Medium*, in a piece titled “The Progressive Rebranding of Racism,” Steve QJ critiques the well-intentioned yet demeaning rhetoric of so-called “antiracists” when discussing issues concerning racial minorities and racism. QJ draws on many examples from recent headlines of progressive policies and rhetoric that may actually be doing more harm than good. How is it “progressive” to suggest that black children are incapable of the same behavioural and academic standards as their white peers? How, exactly, is this trend of undermining the intelligence, maturity and humanity of people of colour any better than good old-fashioned racism? QJ believes this way of thinking is similar to that of “old-school racists” but adds, “at least they didn’t expect us to be grateful for it.” QJ wishes that people would stop treating black people as a unified political category or cultural monolith—“Black people are people. *Black people have always been people*. That’s all there ever was to understand.” According to QJ, “too many ‘antiracists’ have bought into the same delusion we’re supposed to be fighting,” namely “that ‘race’ is an identity we should cling to instead of a lie we should abandon.” *Read the full article here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkE1uxCAMhU8z7BLxD1mw6KbXiAiYDG0CKZCOcv…>.* ------------------------------ Subscribe now <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUdtqxCAU_Jr41uA9yYMPhaW_EYyeZG29LEa75O…> Share <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVkttu4yAQhp8mvmsE-BDnwhfZugdv1-lmW0Vtby…> ------------------------------ *Join the FAIR Community* Click here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkU2O5CAMhU9T7BLxH2rBojdzgtlHBkyKGRJKQL…> to become a FAIR volunteer or to join a FAIR chapter: Join a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission by clicking here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkU1uxCAMhU8z7BIBAcIsWHTTE3Qf8WMytCSMgH…>. Or, to watch a previously recorded session click here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkUtuxCAMhk8z7BLxDlmw6KYn6D4yYDK0JIwI6S…> to visit the Member section of www.fairforall.org <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkU1uxCAMhU8z7BIBAYcsWHTTE3Qf8WMytCSMgH…> . - Sign the FAIR Pledge <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkU2O5CAMhU9T7BLxH7Jg0Zs5wewjA06KGRJKQL…> for a common culture of fairness, understanding and humanity. - Join the FAIR community <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkcmO5CAMhp-muCVihxw49GWeYO4Ri0kxQ0IJSJ…> to connect and share information with other members. - Share your reviews and incident reports <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkcmO5CAMhp-muCVihxw49GWeYO4Ri0kxQ0IJSJ…> on our FAIR Transparency website. Like <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUttu4jAQ_Rry1sh2nEAe8kBL2QYVEFu2wL5Ejj…> [image: Comment]Comment <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUstu4jAU_RqyI_IjzmORBSoFgSbQmVbQmU3k2B…> [image: Share]Share <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVkstu2zAQRb_G2tngQ9RjoYURx4GNyk6bwEm7ES…> If you liked this post from Fair for All <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVkEtuxCAQRE8zLC3AgD0LFtnkGohP4yHBYAGO5d…>, why not share it? Share <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVkduq5CAQRb8mvnXwFpM8-DAwnN8IFa2kneMlGJ…> © 2022 Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism Unsubscribe <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsuOozAQ_JpwjPwCzMGHaDJ5KWR3pVEykwuyoS…> 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 [image: Publish on Substack] <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxNkUluxCAQRU9jlhZg8LBgESnKNSwMhZuEwWJIy7…> -- P2P Foundation: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: ; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Curation of news on p2p/commons developments: https://www.facebook.com/groups/p2p.open/

1 0

against the massive indoctrination of US workers
by Michel Bauwens 03 Jan '22

03 Jan '22

I don't intend to use this mailing list to harp on this divisive topic, but I also am reacting to the denialist article send by DM, which flies in the face of an overwhelming amount of documentation ... so for 2-3 days, I may send some items, so that nobody can claim, "Ich have this nich gewusst". Michel Benjamin Morley wrote a piece for our *Fair for all* Substack about his personal run-ins with race essentialist diversity, equity, and inclusion trainings while working for Vermont’s Department of Aging and Independent Living. Morley describes the training he and others experienced in detail: The trainers attempted to impose their ideology on us by changing our perceptions and values related to areas such as equity, privilege, racism, identity, family, politics, and spiritual beliefs. They also sought to alter our self-perception based on which identity groups we were members of, and how this group membership affected our status in American society. The facilitator tried to normalize this new philosophy by encouraging us to completely re-evaluate our individual identities, part of what she referred to as “doing the work.” Morley and others were accused of racism, and he remembers witnessing the “fear, sadness, and guilt” the training instilled in his coworkers. However, this was interpreted by the trainers as merely a symptom of “doing the work” that’s necessary to combat “whiteness” and systemic racism. When Morely decided to voice his misgivings about the training, he discovered that he was indeed not alone—many of his coworkers felt the same way, but were simply too afraid to to speak up. Morely believes this dynamic is common, and hopes his story encourages more people to start speaking up. https://fairforall.substack.com/p/i-spoke-out-against-discriminatory -- P2P Foundation: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: ; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Curation of news on p2p/commons developments: https://www.facebook.com/groups/p2p.open/

1 0

Fwd: Crypto Criticism, Part Two
by Michel Bauwens 03 Jan '22

03 Jan '22

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Daniel Pinchbeck from Daniel Pinchbeck’s Newsletter < danielpinchbeck(a)substack.com> Date: Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 12:31 AM Subject: Crypto Criticism, Part Two To: <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Confronting the Left's negative critique of cryptocurrency ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ Crypto Criticism, Part Two <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdksGOmzAQhp8m3IiMMWAffFglippoQxp11eyekD…>Confronting the Left's negative critique of cryptocurrency <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxNkMFuhCAQhp9mua0ZcEQ8cOilr2EQZpUsokFo69…> Daniel Pinchbeck <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxNkMFuhCAQhp9mua0ZcEQ8cOilr2EQZpUsokFo69…> Jan 2 <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdUkuPmzAQ_jXh1sgYB8zBhzQkEtGWiD42oRdk7A…> [image: Comment] <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdUkuP2yAQ_jXxzRFg_DpwWCWKmmjjdNVVs3uyME…> [image: Share] <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdklGPoyAQxz-NvtkgouKDD5s2zbXZ2mtuc919Mg…> <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsuupCAQ_Zp2p-GlwoLFzSTzG6aA0iat4ADevj…> Sterling Crispin, *Property*, 2021 Critical Paths In the last part of this essay, I considered a few of the main criticisms of cryptocurrency coming from the traditional Left. To review: Leftists argue that cryptocurrencies are not actually a new form of money – a universal unit of exchange for purchasing goods and services – but mainly function as speculative assets that are highly volatile and prey to market manipulation, such as “pump and dump” and “rug pulling¹” schemes. Leftists think that cryptocurrencies, in general, increase the “financialization” of the economy (the movement away from producing goods to trading complex financial products) as well as the privatization of public goods or commonly held resources. They believe these ongoing trends have caused negative outcomes over the last half century, such as Structural Adjustment Programs in the developing world and the 2008 crash of the global financial system. Not just Leftist critics but critics from across the political spectrum — including both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump – warn that cryptocurrency may disrupt fiat currency as money becomes privatized. The private creation of money-like tokens could lead to increasing wealth inequality as more people “invest” their money into crypto (or, in other words, get swindled by crypto scams). It could disempower governments without providing any better answer to our social and environmental needs. Traditional Leftists (socialists and communists) believe that national governments should maintain control over the creation of money. Hence, the Leftist project should focus on reforming government, as someone like Bernie Sanders wants to do. Structural inequality can be addressed using traditional techniques like taxation – increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy and then redistributing capital through social programs – or even reparations, where money is given to indigenous people and the contemporary descendants of former slaves, to ameliorate unjust legacies. Subscribe now <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdUttuozAQ_Rp4a2SMQ5wHHprQqnQb0nazUfKEfB…> In *The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right Wing Extremism*, David Golumbia argues that the design of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have an intrinsic Libertarian bias – that this political ideology is “encoded in the software itself.” Crypto is a way to avoid regulation and taxation, and ultimately bring down governments which, Libertarians believe, limit human freedom. Golumbia writes that Bitcoin’s core proponents seek an “anarchic apocalypse” to put governments out of business: “This, in the end, is the extreme rightist—anarcho-capitalist, winner-take-all, even neo-feudalist— political vision too many of those in the Bitcoin (along with other cryptocurrency) and blockchain communities, whatever they believe their political orientation to be, are working actively to bring about.” Traditional Leftists like Golumbia want a strong centralized State but one aimed at their goals: Wealth redistribution, demilitarization, protection of civil rights, and universal social programs. Yet, in a country like the US, it doesn’t seem possible to overcome the entrenched inertia of the system, which is beholden to corporate power and the financial elite. The people no longer trust the government and seek alternatives. Out of frustration, many are embracing Right Wing authoritarianism. Any significant challenge to our current political-economic system must come from outside of it — from the private sector or from hackers in the tech world. Blockchain-based technologies can redefine the creation and distribution of both economic value and political power. Rather than rejecting them, we should use them to build something new. Critics also note that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are environmentally destructive. Bitcoin mining uses an incredible amount of energy – more than a country like Sweden, or more than all of the solar panels currently operating in the world. Bitcoin investors and promoters will argue around this point in a number of ways. For instance they will insist that the Bitcoin mining industry is somehow leading the way in accessing renewable sources of energy, such as hydro-power. But this doesn’t hide the reality of the ruinous impact of “proof of work” mining. All of the energy going into solving complex mathematical puzzles could be used, instead, for actual necessities, at a time when we must radically reduce CO2 output or face imminent planetary catastrophe. (Of course, some on the Libertarian Right still insist, all evidence to the contrary, that anthropogenic global warming is a myth or a Deep State conspiracy). Ethereum is currently in the process of transitioning from “proof of work” to “proof of stake” mining, which requires far less energy. But this has not yet been accomplished. Critics such as Michel Bauwens and Alex Pazaitis, in a recent report for the P2P Foundation, argue that there are inherent problems with both modes of maintaining distributed ledgers: “Both proof-of-work and proof-of-stake protocols do not present fair mechanisms for the distribution of power in decision-making. Proof-of-work creates soaring demands in energy and processing power… proof of stake is explicitly based on ownership of stakes, which represents the outcome of the very same unequally-distributed underlying dynamics” found throughout Capitalism with its hierarchical power structures. One of the main terms used to promote cryptocurrency adoption is “decentralization.” Yet critics argue that this ideal of decentralization is both a bit of a fraud and problematic in a number of ways. Some critics make an analogy to the way “democratization” was used to promote the adoption of Web2.0 technologies such as social networks and blogging. In the end, it is unclear if these tools have promoted democratic values. Authoritarian movements and regimes make effective use of them and appear to be growing around the world. Similarly, decentralization could easily lead to a recentralization, through Central Bank issued digital currencies or by other means. Critics argue that promoting decentralization as a goal of the movement is misleading in a few different ways. One problem is that certain aspects of the creation and distribution of cryptocurrencies tend to become more centralized over time. For example, originally it was possible for individuals to mine Bitcoin on their personal computers. As the network grew, it required more computing power to perform its ongoing calculations. Bitcoin creation is now mainly done by a small number of huge, centralized mining operations who, presumably, have a great deal of influence over the network. As ‘Amazon’s Server Outage Took Down a ‘Decentralized’ Crypto Exchange <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkc2OhCAMgJ9muGkQUfHAYS_7Ggaho2SwGCzruE…>,’ an article from Vice reveals, many of the so-called decentralized tokens and exchanges rely on highly centralized infrastructure, such as Amazon’s Web Services (AWS). They are thus prone to failure or potentially can be targeted for attack. The article notes: “It's clear that the "decentralized" part of "decentralized finance" has a bit to go in some cases, and Amazon's cloud dominance is now pretty much a core part of the web, whether that's web1, 2, or 3. And that can cause all sorts of problems.” Share <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdklGPoyAQxz-NvtkgouKDD5s2zbXZ2mtuc919Mg…> While Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are not as decentralized as they seem to be, they are also not devoid of internal political battles, which was supposed to be another selling point. Crypto-economics holds out the vision of a world where messy political contests are unnecessary because the purity of the code resolves such dilemmas. Yet in actuality, many cryptocurrencies reach points in their development where complex decisions must be made through traditional political means, with factions of stakeholders holding emergency summits and frantic Zoom calls to piece the thing back together. <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUt2OpSAMfprjnQahKF5wMdlkX8PwUz1kFFzAmT…> Cards of Entropy, an NFT by PAK, an anonymous artist who sold a collection at Sotheby’s for $17 million in April. Blockchain Leftism On the other side of this argument, there are some who believe that blockchain-based innovations are necessary. They can reinvent our economic and political systems to be far more equitable and ecologically regenerative. A number of new projects are working in this direction. I will briefly mention a couple of initiatives here. I hope to look at these projects – among others – more closely in future newsletters. P2P Accounting for Planetary Survival This report from the P2P Foundation <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkc-OgyAQxp-m3NYgouKBQy89b7IPYHAYLVkEgt…> focuses on ways that blockchain-based technologies can be the backbone of a profound redesign of society. According to the authors, the current political-economy of capitalism combines “strategies of artificial scarcity and pseudo abundance in a way that increase[s] social injustice and inequality”: *The idea of pseudo abundance is based on the mistaken premise of infinite material growth on a finite planet, where natural resources are actually fundamentally limited. Artificial scarcity refers to the strategies that prevent the sharing of technological and scientific progress because of excessively restrictive intellectual property rights. A sensible alternative is, of course, to recognize the limits of what we can use from the world of nature, of which we are an intrinsic part, and to allow for the sharing of all knowledge that can contribute to living within the limits of this ‘biocapacity.’* Capitalism forces ongoing competition for survival that could have been made obsolete by now. Exploitation of natural resources, emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollution are turned into externalities outside of its financial calculus. Capitalism engineers artificial scarcity – of intellectual property as well as basic necessities such as housing, food, and healthcare – to perpetuate itself. The solution to this, the report argues, is what they call: “Commons-Based Peer Production.” Our future should revolve around “a new mode of production and exchange, where communities create shared value through open contributory systems, govern their common work through participatory practices, and create shared resources that can, in turn, be used in new iterations.” This new commons-based structure, the authors propose, can be mediated by blockchain-based distributed technologies, or further iterations of distributed ledgers, such as Holochain. The report discusses a number of blockchain-based projects that can support the transition to a new social model based on commons-based peer production. These include Envienta, FabChain, DAOStack, Faircoin, Trustlines, Regen Network, and so on. Such tools “emphasize the elements of openness and cooperation, keeping locally-determined socio-ecological conditions in mind, involving mutualization, circulation and reuse of resources and outputs in integrated systems.” The new systems of “mutual coordination” must take place within the limits of defined planetary boundaries, requiring a “planning framework” based on how much of a given resource can be utilized without causing long-term harm. Holochain One technology they point to is Holochain. I have been struggling to understand Holochain for a few years now. The authors of the P2P report write that Holochain “reimagines distributed ledgers altogether based on principles derived from biomimicry.” Rather than seeking to build a mathematically perfect structure that eliminates the need for trust between humans, Holochain applies the concept of a “web of trust”: “If A trusts B and B trusts C, then trust can be assured among all the peers.” Holochain “uses mutual credit as its main mechanism for exchange of value,” and seeks to limit the decision-making clout of big investors. Holochain, as I understand it, is not a blockchain technology but a parallel system designed in such a way that it addresses the Libertarian biases inherent in most crypto projects, including Bitcoin and Ethereum. Proof of Humanity / Democracy.Earth Proof of Humanity <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkMmOhCAURb-mWBpEQFiw6E39hmF4KikFw9C2f9…> seeks to address one of the core problems of the Internet – in fact, the essential flaw that led to the current catastrophe in which corporations like Google and Facebook control our personal data and sell it to advertisers as their product. The problem is that the founders of the Internet didn’t develop protocols around personal identity. The original pioneers were scientists and engineers who developed the basic Internet protocols for purposes of research and sharing information. Personal identity was not their focus. When I started my company, Evolver, back in 2007, we wanted to address this problem of identity by implementing technologies that were being developed back then, such as the Identity Commons. The idea was to flip the logic of the Internet: Each user would have a secure holder for their identity and personal data. They would be able to choose what parts of their identity they wanted to share with any company or organization – instead of corporations building “walled silos” to data-mine their user base. But the financial incentives supporting the current extractive model were too powerful to allow for alternatives. With Proof of Humanity, you undergo a verification process designed to prove you are a human being, not a Bot or AI. Once you have successfully passed the registration process, you start to receive a regular Universal Basic Income (UBI). I am not sure exactly how the funds for the UBI are generated, but apparently it amounts to several hundred dollars per month. This is already making a major difference in the lives of old people in Latin America who are signing up for it. If Proof of Humanity is scalable, it could help to bring about a more egalitarian restructuring of society. Conclusion Instead of rejecting blockchain-based tokenomics as a regressive social force and dismissing its utility for progressive or socialist goals, Leftists should actively experiment with this technology. While it is true that crypto has largely succeeded because it mobilizes people based on individual self-interest, the technical capacities that are being unleashed through cryptocurrency innovation could be implemented to bring about the commons-based peer-production model proposed by the P2P Foundation. I am not sure what other approach makes sense, if current governments cannot be fundamentally changed. In George Monbiot’s recent essay, Surface Tension <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlUEuOhSAQPM1jNwYRARcsZjPXMAitkqdg-Izj7a…>, he writes: “Human civilisation relies on current equilibrium states. But, all over the world, crucial systems appear to be approaching their tipping points. If one system crashes, it is likely to drag others down, triggering a cascade of chaos known as systemic environmental collapse.” He explores why we are unable, as a society, to address the ecological emergency. We retreat, instead, into distractions and various forms of escapism. Monbiot proposes we need “limitarianism”: A movement to limit excesses of wealth as well as excesses of poverty. We also must strengthen the commons while reducing destructive economic activity: “While there is not enough ecological or even physical space on Earth for everyone to enjoy private luxury, there is enough to provide everyone with public luxury: magnificent parks, hospitals, swimming pools, art galleries, tennis courts and transport systems, playgrounds and community centers.” Monbiot believes our only hope is mass disobedience. But a more sophisticated and perhaps more important form of disobedience involves building the new social infrastructure needed for the transition. This — rather than trading speculative assets — may be where blockchain-based systems for exchanging value become meaningful and even necessary for humanity’s future. At the same time, I am wary of the tendency of utopian ideals to function as covert propaganda for Capitalist schemes, as we have seen again and again in recent history. We saw it with the thwarted promises of Web2.0. However, this may be a point where the future is up for grabs, and we need more capable, well-intentioned people working on theoretical and practical implementation. Daniel Pinchbeck’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive special offers and support my work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe now <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdUttu4jAQ_RryBnIc5_bgh0JaNd0SSpdF8BQl9h…> <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsmO5CAM_ZrKLRGLCeTAoTXS_EbE4kqhSiADpL…> Please <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxVUsmO5CAM_ZrKLRGLCeTAoTXS_EbE4kqhSiADpL…>pick up the new audiobook version of 2012 here <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkEFyhCAQRU8z7MZCRMQFi2xyDQuhdaggGGhizO…> - 50% off for paid subscribers. This is my metaphysical epic, originally published in 2006. BUY THE 2012 AUDIOBOOK <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwlkEFyhCAQRU8z7MZCRMQFi2xyDQuhdaggGGhizO…> 1 A “rug pull” is when the founder of a crypto-related enterprise disappears, usually taking all of the funds with them. Like <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdUkuPmzAQ_jXh1sgYB8zBhzQkEtGWiD42oRdk7A…> [image: Comment]Comment <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdUkuP2yAQ_jXxzRFg_DpwWCWKmmjjdNVVs3uyME…> [image: Share]Share <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdklGPoyAQxz-NvtkgouKDD5s2zbXZ2mtuc919Mg…> You’re a free subscriber to Daniel Pinchbeck’s Newsletter <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdkMtuxCAMRb9mWEaGcRKyYNHN_EbEw5OgEhLxaJ…>. For the full experience, become a paid subscriber. <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdUk2TojAQ_TVwWyuE8HXIYZSZGmZHHGddS09USF…> Subscribe <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdUk2TojAQ_TVwWyuE8HXIYZSZGmZHHGddS09USF…> © 2022 Daniel Pinchbeck Unsubscribe <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxdUs3O2jAQfBpyK_Jv4hx8QCAoqICQqg84RY69EE…> 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 [image: Publish on Substack] <https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJxNkc1uhSAQhZ9GlgYRcVywaNLc1zAIo5dUwPDT1r…> -- P2P Foundation: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: ; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Curation of news on p2p/commons developments: https://www.facebook.com/groups/p2p.open/

1 0

a strategic analysis of where we are, and the role of the 'everywhere's
by Michel Bauwens 03 Jan '22

03 Jan '22

WHERE ARE WE GOING ? A POLITICAL-STRATEGIC ANALYSIS Here is how I see our conundrum - While capitalism and neoliberalism have been contradictory phenomenon in human history, creating both a lot of wealth, as well as substantial misery, the very least we can say is that it does not seem to be sustainable in the longer term: it is an agent of destruction of vital planetary resources, and is creating in its current phase, acute social inequalities; it seems in a process of de-legimization and disintegration, and the seeds are being sown for much more authoritarian and totalitarian systems At the same time, it is doubtful if this can succeed, and ‘distributed disintegration’ seems a realistic counter-scenario. This might lead both to local deterioration but also to local re-organizations that may be more sustainable and socially just. As global and national identities are weakened by the inability of both the global and national systems to satisfy human needs and dreams, two counter-reactions are occurring. On the side of the ‘somewheres’, broadly the working classes that are rooted to place and community, the search is for more closer-knit potential solidarities; this leads to a revival of localist, communautarian, regionalist, but also nation-state ideologies, along with ethnic and religious revivals, the binding element is a search for cultural roots that can create common identity; * for the ‘nowheres’, broadly the intellectual and managerial classes, the regression is to the ‘woke’ identities, mostly linked to biological conditions such as skin colour, gender, sexual preferences, etc .. The first reaction leads to new coalitions of the rooted, with the more local ‘powers that be’,i.e. the territorially rooted entrepreneurs, SME's etc ...; the latter ‘unity of victimhood’ is powerfully backed by the culturally progressive neoliberal elites, i.e. woke inc., the woke state formations, etc .. Both reactions lead to increased othering, are based on scapegoating mechanisms that may lead to social violence. (the inner group being consolidated by a 'common enemy', rather than choosing for common humanity approaches). We have historical examples on this on both sides of the political spectrum. Indeed the first form of reaction may lead to increased xenophobia and to local and national forms of competition, with substantial dangers for increased warfare for scarce resources; the second leads to the consolidation of a new knowledge elite, led by a intellectual cartel, and means an all-out warfare against the poor and the working class. Equal outcome ideologies have historically led to disasters (right from the Mazdaceans in Ancient Persia up to the Cultural Revolution under Mao) So it must be said that the return to the nation-state, and ‘sovereignism’, in the current context, is much more inclusive and pro-diversity in nature, it aims to revive collective stories that bind, but at the cost of an increased effort towards ‘assimilation’ towards national identities; it means a slowing down of migration (the classic position of Marxism, the left and the labor movement until the 70s), but it is also attached to the rule of law, equality under the law, and reinforced forms of national solidarity, along with forms of protectionism; the second option aims for a new racial and group identity based society, based on racial and other hierarchies, based on permanent active discrimination, in other words, a segregated society modelled on the realities that were prevalent before modernity and before the advent of ‘universalist egalitarianism’. I sincerely hope that a more progressive version of this may develop, but I am not putting my hopes on it. My bet is therefore that the sociology of the first coalition is better poised for victories in the current context, and that the second, despite its alliance with neoliberal forces, cannot command local and national majorities. As stated, both reactions will increase othering, the first against perceived ‘foreign elements that refuse to assimilate’, the second a particular racial group but that will likely lead to a permanent purity spiral and social implosions. But it is important to realize that the nation-state, and its idea of legal equality between all citizens, which can receive a progressive translation through building infrastructures of opportunity for all, is in all circumstances preferable to a society based on biological profiling and hierarchization, group allocation and unequality before the law. [This may sound counter-intuitive, but if we posit 3 factions: * the conservative position of equality before the law, but which tends to ignore the objective physical realities needed to realize these rights concretely * the traditional progressive position of concretizing these rights through infrastructures of access and personal development for the majority working populations * the neo-identitarian position of equality of outcome which requires the abolition of merit in selection, group allocation of the surplus, and active discrimination (i.e. abolishing equality before the law) Then it seems that there is a potential for a re-alignment of politics as position 1 and 2 are potentially closer to each other, than position 2 and 3. The reality that complicates such a scenario is that the second position is melting.] Neither side offers permanent solutions to the current meta-crisis which is inevitably planetary. If we rule out a world state scenario (though elements of the public-private Great Reset scenario will be attempted to play out and the World Social Forum website shows that this will be accompanied by attempts to impose a strong dose of global wokism through the DIE bureaucracies of the big corporations), and if we rule out national protectionism as a permanent solution because of the dangers of inter-state war, then the COSMO-LOCAL scenario that we are proposing becomes a realistic THIRD WAY. (The above could be called the 'anywheres' scenario except that this indicates 'rootlessness' and I believe it is rather a case of 'rootfullness' as this is a part of the population that is very active in term of projected passionate projects. They are the agents of the trans-localisation of politics) This means a revival and relocalisation of local economies using distributed models, but accompanied with global cooperation through global open design communities, which are the ‘protocol cooperatives’ carrying the vital regenerative knowledge that is needed to be both local, regional, national and global challenges. In this scenario, the role of geographical public authorities, such as the nation-state, changes from the neoliberal role of attracting global finance investments, to the role of inserting the revived territories in the global streams of technical and scientific, ‘regenerative’ knowledge. The vehicle for this will be the cosmo-local nomads, which form a bridge between the local, in which they are permanently or non-permanently embedded, and the global communities. These brahmin-workers types, now to be found in makerspaces and in digital nomad cities and regions across the world, and which are also expressed through ledger-based transnational ecosystems with its potential for ‘cloud nations’ (aka 'neoguild systems) will be the cultural and ideological vehicle for this transition. They will supplement the localism, including nation-state localism, with the seeds of a broadening of identity towards translocal and transnational cosmo-localism. These people have their feet in the mud, their heart in both local and trans-local communities, and their brain in the global noosphere. The vehicle for this is neo-regional territoritial development around ‘open source third spaces’ which connect local and rooted know-how, to global technical knowhow, embedded in cosmo-local cyber-physical infrastructures. Neo-guilds will connect the local with the cosmic polarities, i.e. a organized neo-nomadic working class. The question is, which social-political movement(s) can express this transition ? As the left are in processes of self-destruction through their adoption of neo-racist and segregationist policies that destroy any chance of popular alignment outside of their elite circles, and exception made for potential movements that will refuse this slide; and since generally speaking conservative movements are oblivious until now to the ecological and social issues, that question remains quite open. In the meantime, the recommendation is for the cosmo-local forces to keep constructing their seed forms, interconnect, and seek without political prejudice for representational forces that are willing to support partner state (and ‘productive democracy’ approaches) frameworks and regulations that support this transition. -- P2P Foundation: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: ; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Curation of news on p2p/commons developments: https://www.facebook.com/groups/p2p.open/

1 0

analyzing wokism
by Michel Bauwens 03 Jan '22

03 Jan '22

Below is a class analysis of the current form of identity politics based on neo-racism and neo-segregationism, i.e. the ideology that claims that people should be treated and interpreted on the basis of their group characteristics, and on their differences instead of their commonalities. Peer to peer dynamics and commoning require that people are recognized as equipotential persons, since the basis is the free association of people to common projects. An ideology that claims that people are representatives of their group and must behave according to group norms, and interpreted on that basis, is not compatible with commoning as a set of ideas or practice. I spent some time analyzing the Evergreen State College events, and what the behavior of the actors expresses in terms of political principles, which you can find here, at https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Woke_Ideology. These practices based on racial and other forms of scapegoating and hierarchisation are probably the closest one can find to the racist and anti-semitic movements of the 1930s. They 'cancel' people they disagree with, aiming for the reputational and economic destruction, use violence and intimidation, are pro-censorship. They are an entirely illiberal tendency, and a clear and present danger to any social advance. It is important to know that there is a solid progressive, black-liberation, socialist and Marxist critique of this middle class ideology of the professional and managerial classes, which you can find in this depository, https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Category:Identity_Politics For those wanting to learn more about the genesis of this neo-racist and segregationist movement, I recommend the following three books, none of them are perfect, but they are quite good: 1) Cynical Theories gives the ideological evolution from the postmodernism of the 70s, in 3 stages, i.e. from deconstructive to agentic or applied postmodernism, and from applied to reified postmodernis, which consciously decided to essentialize biological characteristics and create race and gender hierarchies based on them. Stage 1 and 2 are entirely compatible with progressive thinking in its pluralist variety, but stage 3 thinkers overturn the principles of egalitarianism and universalism, and chose to fight for zero-sum games in favour of PMC elites. The book extensive quotes the actors and thinkers in the movement, in their own words 2) The Coddling of the American Mind, gives the sociological background which is essential the story of the culture of fear which started already in the 80s, but became hegemonic pretty much exactly in 2013-15, when GenZ entered the universities, the first generation to be socialized not on the internet but on mobile social media, and demanded the culture of fragility which is now the norm. It also explains the psychological mechanisms that are at work, and are the opposite of the ones creating resilience. 3) As of 2017, this generation entered the workforce, with one third being strongly supportive of authoritarian censorship. This is the story told by the Madness of Crowd. You may also want to check out the book of Erec Smith, outlining the disempowering effects of the new ideology on minority students, and the books of father Toure and son, as representatives of the class-based black liberation traditions. The majority of students and professors in anglo-saxon countries now declare that they are no longer free to speak their mind, and thousands of progressives have been eliminated from academia. This is why the marxist Jacobin and its theoretical magazine Catalyst, and their Youtube channel, are one of the best sources for continued progressive resistance against the Successor Ideology. The book Woke Inc is an insider account of the switch of the ruling class elites to the new ideology, as a conscious response to the 99% challenge of the Occupy movement. Cornell West, Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Matt Taibi and Glenn Greenwald are just some of the voices who have spoken out against identity politics and cancel culture and noted the political inversion, i.e. of people claiming to be progressive but favouring all the themes that used to be right-wing. Denialism is not a strategy: all the surveys, electoral and sociological research point to a consistent picture: identitarian ideology leads to a systematic weakening of the left and guarantees electoral defeats. Vivek Chibber, who agrees with Wallerstein that this will delay social change for at least a generation, explains very well the political dynamics and how it creates a blackmail situation towards the social left: whenever a left-populist champion appears, as Sanders in the US or Corbyn in the UK, the thematic is used to discredit them. This is how Sanders, who had won the first one third of the primaries in 2019, was eliminated in Georgia, after the mobilization of the woke theme that he was a white supremacist. The good news, if there is any, is that p2p and commons movements are the most resilient against it: wokism is a technique for PMC elites for a redistribution of benefits, but it only works in institutions that have benefits to share and where 'stalinist'-type purges allow for a redistribution of power and benefits; in contributory communities, distributing based on identity instead of on contribution is an impossibility. Silence towards the countless victimizations that this movements initiatives amounts to complicity, but we must not focus all our energies in negative ways; a continued committment towards the constructive engagement with actual commons remains the priority. Here is a recent article, https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Towards_a_Global_Open_Ledger_for_Contributor… And people will be aware of our new book on the Cosmo-Localization of production, which has about 100 case studies. Wokeness is a tragedy for the left, perhaps the end game of the emancipatory movement that started with the French Revolution and became worker-oriented in 1848, at the same time popular and social struggles will find new expressions, as they have always done. Michel Bauwens: Here are some preliminary notes about the meaning of the emergence of the woke movement in the US and elsewhere. I define the woke movement as a social movement that: - Claims to want to end unequal power dynamics and the end of oppression and privilege by majority groups towards minority groups, with the main privileged groups believed to be white males, who prop the unjust domination of the West - Claims that to obtain this equality, we must practice equity, i.e. a form of systematic reverse discrimination of resources so that the oppressed groups can appropriate their right share of resources, principally through antiracist activity. Resources must be unequally divided with a preference for the oppressed groups. - Claims that the primary determinant of human life and one’s position in the social order, depends on group membership, which largely determine individual identity and the course of life. - Claims the moral high ground and practices moral outrage as one of its principal activist tactics; calls for censorship and denunciations/cancellations are the most common tactic to obtain ideological hegemony. The movement originated as one of the outcomes of postmodern teachings in academia, through the mediation of Critical Race Theory, and its social origination is in the youth strata of the elite universities, i.e. the children of the most privileged strata of the population, allied with the professional strata of minority groups. It is also supported by the cognitive urban strata of the population, especially the post-millennial generational cohort. The aims of the movement are massively supported by the 1) ‘diversity and inclusion’ bureaucracy’ and administrations of US universities, corporations and federal institutions (particularly HR sectors but extended to all forms of administrative leadership); 2) massive funding by philanthro-capitalism and corporate leaderships (‘woke capitalism’); 3) the political leadership of ‘progressive neoliberalism’; 4) the mainstream mass media. The above sociological orientation does not suggest that it has any characteristic of traditional emancipatory movements, which are generally supported by working class populations. Moreover, its political demands have immediate and obvious effects that are hugely detrimental to the poorer populations of all genders and races. Their demands favour the elite and upwardly mobile sections of minority populations. Many of its tactics are hugely reminiscent of the reactionary social movements of the 1930s (deplatforming and cancellation of political dissent, desire for caste-based allocation and organization of society, racial scapegoating), although there are obvious differences in its sociological basis. What is common is a conjucture of societal 'descent', creating populations that fear social regress, which generally does not create 'progressive' aims and outcomes. So here is my attempt to explain its emergence at this particular historical conjuncture. Global capitalism has entered a downward spiral of systemic crises that has hampered its ability to satisfy the desire of populations for material betterment; this is especially so in the Western countries, which have since the 1980s sacrificed their own working classes to enable globalization. Originally, the neoliberal compact of the 80s, which replaced the social welfare compact after WWII, was based on an alliance of the ruling classes with the new identity politics, i.e the cultural changes demanded by the youth cohorts that fought the 1968 revolutions, and the subsequent demands for egalitarian civil rights by racial minorities, women, sexual practice minorities, etc …, while simultaneous de-industrialising the West to eliminate working class power and demands. This led to huge advances in civil rights, to systemic anti-discrimination practices in institutions, and to the growth of a upwardly mobile middle class emerging from these minorities, though at the detriment of the stagnation or decline of working class wages. But as of 2003, resource prices stopped their downward trend and started augmenting, and in 2008, the global financial crisis occured, seriously affecting the redistributional capacity of the state. Neoliberal leaderships such as those of Obama, resulted in choices in favour of the saving the financial elite, at the cost of minorities and working classes (see the housing policies of Obama, which particularly affected the housing stock of the African-American population). In particular, upward educational mobility was seriously affected, creating a generation riddled with student debt, and with very precarious prospects. This is particularly the case for minority students which saw their upward mobility endangered. In such a conjuncture, social and economic prospects become not only negative, but can be seen as a zero sum game; psychological and sociological uncertainty leads to identity issues and a search for protective communities that can take various forms: 1) traditional left-wing urban populism, as represented by Sanders 2) ethno-nationalistic re-identification with the nation state, as represented by Trump 3) identitarian politics, as represented by the woke movement. *Option 1* is the most hated by the elites, since it requires substantial distribution of resources towards the working poor; *option 2* has become attractive to rural populations, small business holders and the native working class and this movement gave us Trump; but to a substantial degree, Trump represents giving up Empire to save the Nation, which is contrary to the neoliberal choice of giving up the Nation for the sake of Empire. Trump represents a rival alliance than the current neoliberal compact. And this is what makes *option 3* so attractive to the elite. Option 3 represents a new compact of the elites, to make hard a new redistribution of the spoils with the upwardly mobile minorities, but at the cost of sacrificing the working poor of all genders and colours. It is the cheapest option, that allows the ruling elites 1) to maintain the Empire by expanding its social base with new middle class representation; 2) to avoid more massive egalitarian redistribution. Giving the alliance of minority elites a stake in the system creates a new sociological compact, and expands elite buy-in, creating a bulwark against majority demands that are much more dangerous and costly. -- P2P Foundation: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: ; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Curation of news on p2p/commons developments: https://www.facebook.com/groups/p2p.open/

1 0

Éclipse de la raison — aux origines du supposé « wokisme » – RogueESR
by Dante Monson 02 Jan '22

02 Jan '22

Since such Red Herring fallacies had / have a deep impact on social dynamics in regards to the p2pfoundation in the last years, this might help clarify. In French. Worth pressing auto translation: https://rogueesr.fr/20211208-2/ Éclipse de la raison — aux origines du supposé « wokisme » La période récente a vu se multiplier les procédés d’implosion du langage destinés à créer un brouillard de confusion et de désillusion. Le procédé le plus simple consiste à substituer au sens propre des mots, le sens de leur antonyme. C’est de cela que procédait déjà le terme d’*autonomie* présidant au démantèlement des normes d’exigence intellectuelle, d’intégrité et de collégialité à l’Université. La mise en circulation de catégories creuses, de concepts mal posés et de faux problèmes fait également partie de cette stratégie de brouillard discursif. La propulsion dans la sphère médiatique du mot « wokisme », quelques mois après l’apparition d’autres chiffons rouges comme « *cancel culture* » ou « islamo-gauchisme » participe de ce brouillage qui pollue l’analyse de la situation réelle de l’Université et de la science en général, qui vise en outre à porter atteinte à la liberté académique. Dans l’agitation du « wokisme », le réel ne joue aucun rôle : seul compte le fantasme politique que l’étiquette « *woke* » permet aux détracteurs de l’Université d’éveiller. La note qui suit vise d’abord à expliquer le mot « wokisme », et se présente comme un codicille à notre triptyque sur la liberté académique <https://rogueesr.fr/liberte-academique/>.

1 0