- P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

inequality numbers : 3000 people in US owning 1000 times more then 270 million people in the US combined ?
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 20 Mar '11

20 Mar '11

how much "ownership" does that correspond to - in percentage of property ? in percentage of stock market ownership ? in percentage of ownership of the total world economy ? in money ? how is this money used ? any other statistics you know revolving around this ? regarding world population inequality between the top 0,001 percent, and 90 percent of the "least rich" population ? what about "power" in terms of "decision making entities" ? certain companies, or governments have huge powers, but who truly has an influence on them ? is the 0,001 richest percent who owns 1000 times more then the bottom 90 percent in control of these companies and governments ? As to equal the "richness" of the "3000 richest american people", it would require 270 000 000 000 ( 270 billion ) people as rich as one of the ( so called ) richest populations on earth ? How many times richer are the 3000 richest americans, compared to 3000 of the richest non-americans ? In addition to link below, some googling leads me to the following pdf , in relation to "superclass" : 1. http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/files/jia/241-246_long_bookreviews.pdf How can one talk of a "market" when a few people own 1000 times more financial power then almost all the rest ? Is it in their interest to keep or make people poor ? Not to become richer, but to keep control ? http://cognitivedissonance.tumblr.com/post/2345941801/plutocracy-reborn-u-s… excerpt : In 1928, one year before the global economic collapse, the wealthiest .001% of the U.S. population owned 892 times more than 90% of the nation’s citizens. Today, the top .001% of the U.S. population owns 976 times more than the entire bottom 90%<http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_inequality> .

2 1

As Barriers to Entry are Lowered, Wages will be Destroyed
by Patrick Anderson 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

As the overhead to participate is reduced, the number of potential workers is increased. As capital-outlay approaches zero, all peers will have the chance to reverse-bid for any job for which they have skills. This will cause wages to fall to the minimum since there will then be nothing to stop consumers from hiring the lowest bidder. Is this an expected result? What can we do to solve this dilemma?

3 2

Fidonet in community wireless projects?
by Michel Bauwens 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

Interesting question, does anyone have the answer? I'll relay to FAcebook, Michel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Facebook <update+pjiidwm(a)facebookmail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:41 AM Subject: Lorraine Lee commented on your link. To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> facebook<http://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=528245547&v=wall&story_fbid=20273…> Hi Michel, Lorraine Lee commented on your link. Lorraine wrote: "Whatever happened to Fidonet? Is the dna of fidonet alive in some of there community wireless projects we keep hearing about?" See the comment thread<http://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=528245547&v=wall&story_fbid=20273…> Reply to this email to comment on this link. Thanks, The Facebook Team See Comment<http://www.facebook.com/n/?profile.php&id=528245547&v=wall&story_fbid=20273…>The message was sent to michelsub2004(a)gmail.com. If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future or have your email address used for friend suggestions, you can unsubscribe<http://www.facebook.com/o.php?k=c05bf5&u=528245547&mid=3ecb58eG1f7c632bGe0a…>. Facebook, Inc. P.O. Box 10005, Palo Alto, CA 94303 -- 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

5 6

Fwd: p2p and marxism debate, first 'real' reply to Jean Lievens
by Michel Bauwens 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Date: Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:19 PM Subject: p2p and marxism debate, first 'real' reply to Jean Lievens To: p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> Cc: jean lievens <jean.lievens(a)base.be>, orsan(a)tie-netherlands.nl, Walton Pantland <waltonp(a)gmail.com>, Raoul <raoulv(a)club-internet.fr>, Vasilis Kostakis <kostakis.b(a)gmail.com>, George Papanikolaou <georgepapani(a)gmail.com>, "Dafermos, George" <g.n.dafermos(a)tudelft.nl>, Johan Söderberg < johan.soderberg(a)sts.gu.se>, Andy Robinson <ldxar1(a)gmail.com>, phoebe moore < pvm.doc(a)gmail.com> (Jean, in response to http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/p2p-and-marxism-in-search-of?, first identified theme) The historical failure of socialism and the continued dominance of capitalism Dear Jean, Here is a start to my response to your stimulating text. I will use my own proposed fragmentation of your text and respond section by section; not necessarily as a direct response to your arguments, but certainly covering the same topic. Topic one is the historical failure of socialism and the continued dominance of capitalism I think I can broadly share your assessment: - the historical movement's relative failure: The fact that the mainstream labour movement has accepted all the main principles of the current dominant system, and has now, in its social-democratic or actually 'left-neoliberal' form, mainly become a crisis manager for the system, being on the defensive in terms of civic rights, welfare rights and solidarity mechanims. It's merely trying to stem the flows of the losses The Stalinist wing, who counted on the solidarity of the totalitarian regimes, has collapsed with the disappearance of those regimes. I think what has collapsed though is in effect the believability of a systemic alternative to the present system, leaving workers and citizens in a defensive mode, under the constant aggressions of financial capital and its predatory demands. Some general critical points: - the socialist movement was generally a movement that operated within capitalism, and demanded better modalities for those that it represented, which it actually achieved with a relative successful - the successful revolutions turned into counter-examples, as they actually also used the main modalities of capitalism, i.e. waged labour in factories, under even less free conditions I also have more fundamental critique. My opinion is that Marxism did not have a real transition strategy, i.e. it assumed that workers movement needed to take control of the commanding heights of the economy and that only then could a transition start, after a change in ownership and governance. My reading of history is that previous phase transitions did not occur that way. What in fact happened is that proto-feudalism and proto-capitalist practices first occurred within the old dominant system, and through centuries of maturation, achieved critical mass, slowly forming an intermeshed counter-logic, and creating a social basis for its demands. Only when these demands could not be met by the older system, and that older system could no longer provide the needs of the population, did phase transitions actually occur. But it is very hard to see proto-socialist practices within the capitalist system? My hypothesis is that these are only occuring in the last two decades, under the form of commons-based peer to peer production practices. In other words, it is only now that we see the slow maturation of post-capitalist practices, which are slowly intermeshing, are forming the basis for a circulation of the common, and create a social basis for a future phase transition. What is happening is that commons-based peer production is that proto-modality, and that it is this modality which will be at the basis of future social and political revolutions. -- 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 -- 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: La fin du Persée?
by Michel Bauwens 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stefano Serafini <metafrasis(a)alice.it> Date: Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM Subject: La fin du Persée? To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> Cc: Paolo Masciocchi <paolomasciocchi(a)gmail.com>, bernard.dumont2(a)gmail.com, Stefano Borselli <il.covile(a)gmail.com> Dear Michel, It looks that an anti p2p action is going on: destroying Persée.fr What do you know about this affair? http://lapetition.be/en-ligne/petition-9491.html Best, Stefano -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] prince of networks and grid group theory
by Michel Bauwens 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

andy, response inline On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hiya, > > OK, so the individual in CS doesn't just relate to the community as an > undifferentiated whole, but the whole becomes something like a corporate > being separate from each of the contributors - as a result of which, one can > provide a gift to the whole, or receive something from it? I don't think that is the case actually, and this is what differentiate the commons from the state; the state aims 'in theory' to handle the collective, but is separated from that collective, and in the best of cases, use representational mechanisms; but in say digital commons, the whole exists for everyone (with access), without exclusion (at least for use); the commons should not be confused with the community and the community should not be confused with the 'infrastructure of cooperation' which may be managed by a democratic representative body. The real answer is that what you say 'can' happen, but is not a necessary feature, the whole can take on different configurations, some of which, as you say below, can be dangerous. In free cooperation commons, 'you must submit to the greater whole', simply does not exist, since your contribution, and your usage for that matter, are free. In physical commons of course, there are many different issues, yet decades of study show they work quite well under a variety of hybrid regimes. Don't know enough of the specifics of potlach to answer question, but it is quite possible that some of it may be CR, though it is generally classified as a gift dynamic ... It seems to me that, because of the essential hybridity of human relations and projects, things may have AND communal shareholding aspects AND gift aspects etc .. each relation to be examined specifically. However, I do believe that social systems can have a dominant core, but again, to be examined concretely, how to analyse LInux as a corporate dominated commons for example, what dominates, the commons aspects of the code, or the privatising aspects of the participating corporations, both are probably in tension with each other, Michel > Does the community have to be something like a Stirnerian spook for this to > work? I wonder, too, what the role of status is here: if Linus has status > because he contributes to the collective instead of to the individual > contributors, does this mean the collective outranks each of the > participants (i.e. the collective has a claim to gifts, whereas the > contributors do not)? If so, how does this fit with the apparent right to > appropriate from the collective? > > I'm trying to get my head round the implications, because communitarianism > has conservative and authoritarian implications, and often seems to carry > the implications, "individuals must submit to the greater whole" (which > functions like an external figure, very similar to "individuals must submit > to God" or "the king") and "individuals must NOT ask what the collective > will do for them" (need, demand, desire and entitlement figure as sins, and > human rights as outer frame restricting the collective's demands/acts is > rejected) - both typical of gemeinschaft. There's left and right versions > of this perspective, but they're pretty much invariant in how they construct > the collective-individual relation, and they're also invariant in their > social authoritarianism and borderline misanthropy. This doesn't seem to be > how you see CR working, and it doesn't seem to be how Open Source works in > practice (I've never got that authoritarian/misanthropic/anti-rights vibe > from Open Source, quite the opposite), but it sounds closer to CR than to > ER, AR or MP. Is this kind of thing CR? Maybe it's a fifth system, or some > kind of hybrid? > > Also, the fused-group or bund seems to function without reference to a > spook, forming immanently around rituals (it sometimes has an > object-reference which is also expressive). Fused-groups seem capable of > potlatch with collective elements, without the formation of a spook. Does > CR vary depending if its context is gemeinschaft, gesellschaft or bund? Or > is CR impossible in principle in the bund? (Maybe the moment of intense > experience IS the community in a bund?) > > Also, wouldn't some variants of potlatch also be gifts to the collective > (or to all members in an undifferentiated way), rather than to a specific > other person? I'm thinking of the mass-consumption event in which a > contribution of (say) food goes into the production of a feast which is > consumed by the entire band - an exceptionally high contributor gains > status, but the status comes from the common-pool contribution, not from > obligations to each specific person. Would this kind of potlatch be CR > rather than ER? > > bw > Andy > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> thanks for this genealogy!, would be nice to see this in an essay form one >> day <g> >> >> so the difference between CS and ER (gift economy), >> >> is that in CR, you have a general exchange with the whole, and indeed, you >> gain reputation by contributing the most, but there is no 'individual' >> expectation of any precise return to that whole, as long as enough >> individuals contribute enough to maintain the system going; in physical >> systems, this is regulated since the resource is scarce and needs >> replenishing; in 'immaterial systems', this is usually not so regulated >> (however any online CS system is predicated on a physical cooperation >> infrastructure which is predicated on scarcity rules and managed >> differentially from the online polarity) >> >> in the gift exchange you are exchanging between individuals, families, >> clans, tribes; in the case of potlach, the chief, representing a clan or >> tribe, 'gives' to the other tribe, thereby creating a clear debt to that >> other clan/tribe >> >> I don't see Linux as a gift chief giving to other clans/tribes, but rather >> as somebody seen as contributing the most to a particular commons, and thus, >> it's a CS and not a gift logic >> >> I think the psychology is different, i.e. Linux people would feel >> gratitude and respect to Linux for his contributions, and support him as a >> key asset, but would not feel to obligated to give back to the individual >> LInux as a competitive gift >> >> I see an ethical growth between authoritiy ranking, market pricing, gift >> economy, and communal shareholding, each one has a greater degree of >> gifting/sharing than the other; and therfore, I see CS dominance as part of >> an ethical growth ; of course, historically, the logic is rather CS / ER/ >> AR/ MP / CS >> >> This would mean a core of society governed by communal sharing, through >> commons for open knowledge, software and design; surrounded by a level of >> gift economy; surrounded by a level of market mechanisms; and finally >> surrounded by a level of hierarchical distribution, with the different >> levels in a level of 'subsidiarity' >> >> in other words, do whatever you can as communal shareholding (giving >> without direct expectation of return); if that doesn't work, what can work >> through gifting exchange (giving with indirect expectation of return), if >> that doesn't work, what can work through equivalent market exchange (giving >> with direct expectation of immediate return of same value), and if that >> doesn't work, what can work through some form of centrally decided >> allocation/distribution (centrally regulated obligated giving/receiving) >> >> This is the 'ethical' logic, I see, though in practice, a centrally >> allocated basic income, may actually be necessary for CS to work in a >> sustainable manner in the first place, >> >> Michel >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hiya, >>> >>> Well, the way you're talking about communal sharing reminds me a lot of >>> the fused-group in Sartre, its descendant the subject-group in Guattari, and >>> its close relative the bund/band/sect in Peterson, which is traced back to >>> Toennies. Communal ownership has been theorised by people like Owen J. >>> Lynch as underpinning traditional land-use rights in relation to CBNRM, >>> although i think it's being stretched a bit. There's other precedents in >>> anarcho-mutualism and utopian socialism (Fourier, Morris). Fourier's idea >>> of 'harmonisation' is intriguing, basically turning all problems of need >>> into common problems and seeking to solve them by systemic rearrangements >>> which turn problems into assets. Illich talks about certain >>> tools/technologies as 'convivial', implying something like CR, in various >>> works including Deschooling Society and Tools for Conviviality: something >>> like the phone system and the postal system would be a convivial tool >>> (roughly speaking, use-neutral and user-led), whereas the road system and >>> the school system would not be (because it imposes particular uses, has a >>> scarcity structure and is oriented to individualised/competitive use). He >>> talks about using low-tech alternatives, such as 2-way radios and >>> audiocassette networks instead of TV and radio, and electronic mules instead >>> of cars, as appropriate technologies in the South, in similar terms; ditto >>> his 'learning webs' as alternatives to school. His work actually reads >>> nowadays as proto-internet. Something else to look at might be >>> autoreduction, the idea of making services (public transport, electricity, >>> etc) free/common by refusing to pay, which emerged in Italy from autonomia: >>> http://libcom.org/history/autoreduction-movements-turin-1974 >>> >>> I can see why you'd make the move from gift economy to CR. But how would >>> this fit with the authority/status which accrues to people like Linus >>> Torvalds and Assange? This would fit very well with gift economy (the >>> cyber-chief accumulates status by means of disproportionately large >>> contributions, as in potlatch, Big Man systems etc) and not so well with CR >>> (why would contributions be recognised if contributions count as if from a >>> single body?) >>> >>> bw >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Andy, >>>> >>>> thanks a lot for this, >>>> >>>> defining all the characteristics of p2p would take some time, >>>> >>>> but in a nutshell, from >>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske >>>> >>>> Communal Sharing (CS) is a relationship in which people treat some dyad >>>> or group as equivalent and undifferentiated with respect to the social >>>> domain in question. Examples are people using a commons (CS with respect to >>>> utilization of the particular resource), people intensely in love (CS with >>>> respect to their social selves), people who "ask not for whom the bell >>>> tolls, for it tolls for thee" (CS with respect to shared suffering and >>>> common well-being), or people who kill any member of an enemy group >>>> indiscriminately in retaliation for an attack (CS with respect to collective >>>> responsibility). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm starting to list the essential concepts here as well: >>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Companion_Concepts >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1(a)gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hiya, >>>>> >>>>> Actor-network theory (ANT) which Latour is associated with, views >>>>> everything which exists (people, animals, objects) as 'actors', these actors >>>>> as arranged more-or-less horizontally in networks, and seeks to analyse the >>>>> composition of particular networks (e.g. science as an interaction of >>>>> scientists with one another, with their equipment, with whatever they're >>>>> studying, etc). It's a bit different from peer-to-peer in that, while it's >>>>> an anti-authoritarian view, it doesn't really distinguish horizontal and >>>>> vertical organisations, and the actors can co-constitute in different ways - >>>>> in a sense, peer-to-peer would lose its specificity when everyone and >>>>> everything is a peer. Also, it would imply that something like open-source >>>>> programming is not simply a network of programmers, or even programmers and >>>>> users, but also of computers, peripherals, bits of code and so on, which are >>>>> all actors in their own right. It's certainly similar to peer-to-peer >>>>> approaches but it would be hard to unpack its influence from other >>>>> horizontalist theories, e.g. Deleuze and Situationism, which precede it by a >>>>> long way (ANT really took off in the 80s, horizontalism has been around >>>>> since the 60s), and contempotaries such as Hakim Bey. If I was tracing a >>>>> genealogy for peer-to-peer ideas it would probably go from Situationism to >>>>> culture-jamming (things like subvertising, subway graffiti, street theatre), >>>>> to DIY activism in the techno field (such as phone phreaking, rave and >>>>> pirate radio), to early hacker culture, to peer-to-peer, but I might be >>>>> wrong. (Also, weren't some of the early hacktivists rather >>>>> techno-progressivist? This would sit badly with perspectives such as ANT). >>>>> ANT is mostly used in Science and Technology Studies, but has become a >>>>> significant force in sociology too. Certainly worth reading up on if you're >>>>> interested in networks more broadly than in the computer setting. I think >>>>> Latour has written his own introduction to ANT as well. Latour declares his >>>>> own inspiration to be Gabriel Tarde, who would arguably be a further >>>>> 'original' a long time before - though I think some variety of peer-to-peer >>>>> production has been around since time immemorial. >>>>> >>>>> What would you take to be the defining characteristics/ideas of p2p? I >>>>> can probably tell you when they first popped-up in theory. >>>>> >>>>> bw >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [P2P-URBANISM WA] Detroit and Seattle
by Michel Bauwens 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

Dear Stefano, Nikos: I'm interested in a separate update on the Chiesa project, if you have anything available, Michel On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Stefano Serafini < stefanonikolaevic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Привет Глеб! > > I like your interest in Kondratiev, and would like to share some ideas. I'm > taking care of the research of the International Society of Biourbanism ( > www.biourbanism.org ), and I think 3 actual issues we are working on can > fit with your research: 1) Biopolitics; 2) Ecovillages; 3) Politics issues. > All are related with P2P. > > 1) Massimilano Caserta and me are especially interested in biopolitics > issues. Massimilano focuses more on the analysis of space as organized by > the power (according to the thought of Michel Foucault), while I'm more > engaged in the relation between urban form degradation and > hyper-real/images/spectacle/interface, seeking for solutions based upon > human body (biophilia, neuroergonomy). > > 2) Massimo Locci operates in Denmark, and is now researching on > Eco-villages experience in Northern Europe, collecting informations and > models. > > 3) You probably know mr. Giulietto Chiesa (Джульетто Кьеза): he proposed > to our Society to develop a human resistance tool, to be used enforcing a > political transition to post-carbon and post-collpase cities. Nikos > Salingaros is directing this work at the moment. > > Hoping you to stay in touch. > > Best regards, > > Stefano Serafini > > > 2011/3/18 Gleb Tyurin <glebglobal(a)gmail.com> > >> Dear friends! >> >> My name is Gleb Tyurin.I have been registered as a member of that network >> recently.. I am very glad to do it. >> >> Let me say few words about myself. >> >> I am from Russia. Now I live in Moscow. >> >> For many years I have been working with rural development in the North of >> Russia, in Archangelsk region. I worked with development projects in far >> remote villages, providing them with education, consulting. I created an >> NGO called Institute for Social and Humanistic initiatives. We managed to do >> many things and achieve certain success, few dozens of development groups >> appeared and started to work development projects. But we also faced certain >> difficulties. >> >> >> >> Now I live in Moscow. I try to create my own school in St. Petersburg >> which is going to deal with issues of innovative development. I also try to >> promote a program on local development of one of TV channels. >> >> I am very interested in creating partnership aimed on building >> understanding how to develop small places. >> >> Gleb >> >> >> >> >> 2011/3/16 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> >> >>> Via >>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/real-cities-real-transformations/2011/03/16 >>> >>> Real Cities, Real Transformations<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/real-cities-real-transformations/2011/03/16> >>> [image: photo of Sam Rose] >>> Sam Rose >>> 16th March 2011 >>> >>> Check out our recent blog post on our new blog at >>> http://blog.futureforwardinstitute.com/2011/03/15/real-cities-real-transfor…<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/real-cities-real-transformations/2011/03/16> >>> This post is a response to "How Seattle Transformed itself<http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/how-seattle-transformed-itself/>" >>> by Edward L. Glaeser. Some highlights: >>> >>> Systems Matter >>> >>> First, system-effects matter. Cities exist in networks of flows that >>> depend on existing infrastructure. That infrastructure has system-level >>> properties, and it is these properties, not merely the properties of the >>> cities themselves, that produce system-wide effects. For example, in "Nature's >>> Metropolis" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cronon> William Cronon >>> explains the systemic effects of railroads and grain elevators on the >>> development of the American midwest. In fact, the field of "environmental >>> history" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_history> is rife >>> with analyses of how differing contexts have shaped civilizations. >>> >>> In his article, Glaeser acknowledges that cities exist within broader >>> environments, but then he lays his argument at the feet of the people within >>> those cities. In other words, for Glaeser, network effects and systemic >>> properties seem to be relevant *only insofar as they alter the >>> properties of the parts, not of the system as a whole*. Cities change >>> because of their positions in an ecology of cities, and people change >>> because of their positions in an ecology of other people, but he fails to >>> adequately acknowledge that the system itself has properties *outside of >>> its effect on the the properties of its parts*. >>> Comparing the Parts >>> >>> Second, Glaeser's comparison of Seattle and Detroit with respect to >>> density also falls short. >>> Glaeser's claim about "[d]ense, smart cities like Seattle," offered at >>> the expense of Detroit, is hard to square with the fact that Year 2000 >>> U.S. Census <http://www.demographia.com/db-2000city50kdens.htm> data >>> ranked Detroit as 84th in municipalities over 50,000 ranked by density, and >>> Seattle 87th. The Census Bureau's 2010<http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2009.html>estimates still rank Detroit as the eleventh largest city in the nation. >>> >>> To be sure, much of this confusion can be laid at the feet of Economics >>> as a discipline, which has been notoriously remiss in it's recognition of >>> systemic effects. Macro-level systems-thinkers from Keynes to Schelling have >>> consistently pointed out the shortcomings of micro-level analyses. Even >>> post-Internet, Economics has tended to reject any claims that connective >>> technologies fundamentally alter the landscape, for ex. Hal Varian's"Information >>> Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy"<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Rules> >>> . >>> >>> What's Missing? >>> >>> After a recent visit to Detroit<http://shareable.net/blog/detroit-community-resilience-and-the-american-dre…>, >>> Millicent Johnson, community engagement manager at Shareable.net and a >>> native of New York City, noted: >>> >>> It may be more pronounced here, but if we stay on the current track of >>> trying to house ourselves in single family homes, consuming without regard >>> for practicality or sustainability, and looking to a single source for our >>> well being--in our case straight-up consumer-driven capitalism, there is no >>> need to look into a crystal ball, the snapshot of our future is staring us >>> in the face in the stereotypical shots of Detroit. >>> >>> But, I believe Detroit also holds the key to the future of this great >>> nation. We must evolve to a more sustainable way of living if we are to >>> survive, and I think we all innately sense it. We know that >>> two-income-dependent housing prices, while unemployment and underemployment >>> approaches the double digits, does not add up. >>> >>> Harvard Law School professor, Yochai Benkler, urgues us to recognize the >>> "increased diversity of ways of organizing production" in the new economy. >>> >>> "The point is that the networked information economy makes it possible >>> for nonmarket and decentralized models of production to increase their >>> presence alongside the more traditional models, causing some displacement, >>> but increasing the diversity of ways of organizing production rather than >>> replacing one with the other. This diversity of ways of organizing >>> production and consumption, in turn, opens a range of new opportunities for >>> pursuing core political values of liberal societies -- democracy, individual >>> freedom, and social justice." >>> >>> from Freedom in the Commons<http://p2pfoundation.net/Essays#Yochai_Benkler_on_Peer_Production> >>> >>> From this perspective, when Glaeser asks: "Can Detroit find the road >>> forward?" the real response is "Detroit is*already* on the road >>> forward." By freeing itself from the constraints of legacy infrastructure, >>> Detroit gains the flexibility to "harness complexity" to explore and adapt >>> to a new era (see Axelrod and Cohen, "Harnessing Complexity"<http://www.amazon.com/Harnessing-Complexity-Organizational-Implications-Sci…> >>> ). >>> >>> "I really think it's a blessing that we've been deconstructed. We just >>> have to build it right this time. If we do, we can show the world how to >>> live in a sustainable way, with a city that can move quickly to adapt to >>> whatever changes comes its way" said Mike. (Mike Han - Community Development >>> Director of "I AM YOUNG DETROIT <http://www.iamyoungdetroit.com/>." >>> >>> from Detroit, Community Resilience, and the American Dream<http://shareable.net/blog/detroit-community-resilience-and-the-american-dre…> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> "P2P-Urbanism World Atlas" group. >>> to register to the group >>> http://cityleft.blogspot.com/ >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> p2p-urbanism-world-atlas(a)googlegroups.com >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/p2p-urbanism-world-atlas?hl=en >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> "P2P-Urbanism World Atlas" group. >> to register to the group >> http://cityleft.blogspot.com/ >> To post to this group, send email to >> p2p-urbanism-world-atlas(a)googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/p2p-urbanism-world-atlas?hl=en >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > "P2P-Urbanism World Atlas" group. > to register to the group > http://cityleft.blogspot.com/ > To post to this group, send email to > p2p-urbanism-world-atlas(a)googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/p2p-urbanism-world-atlas?hl=en > -- 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

Please help fund our guide to Understanding Today's Economic Transformation
by Samuel Rose 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

we just kicked off this project on RocketHub! We're hoping many of you will find this work useful enough to contribute, and pass along to others: http://rockethub.com/projects/1349-understanding-today-s-economic-transform…<http://rockethub.com/projects/1349-understanding-today-s-economic-transform…> Understanding Today's Economic Transformation [image: 1300474757-xl] *Project Description* *Do you want to understand what is driving our evolving economy in a way that you can use today?* It is no longer news that the old economy is collapsing around us. But it is easy to miss the new economy that is emerging. *This project will produce a guide that brings together research and a model into a set of literacies for understanding today’s changing global economy.* This guide will be based on: 1. *research* on today's changing global economy as an evolving system. 2. a complex systems *simulation* people can use to understand important dynamics transforming that system. This work will draw on work from key thinkers in fields ranging from social media to economics (for example, Howard Rheingold, Douglas Rushkoff, Lawrence Lessig, Chris Anderson, and Elinor Ostrom). Merging the work of these key thinkers with the dynamics of the model will reveal how what is collapsing creates opportunities for what is emerging. The resulting guide will provide you with scenarios and suggestions for creating strategies to help you move forward in the new economy. *The Creative Team* Future Forward Institute: http://futureforwardinstitute.com - Sam Rose is an expert in open-source software, hardware, open data and open knowledge background. Sam has participated in curriculum development, research and real world implementation in the areas discussed in this proposal. - Richard C. Adler is an electronic records archivist, former Borders buyer/merchandiser, and information culture historian who bring a historical perspective on the long-term trends and pivotal events that created the old economy and what factors may influence the creation of the economy to come. - Paul B. Hartzog is a scholar of panarchy, complex systems, emergence, ecology, cooperation, commons, culture, politics, economics, and social theory. Note: 1. RocketHub is not an investment or charity. It is an exchange: funds from fans for rewards from me. 2. It's an All & More funding mechanism: if I don't reach my financial goal I get to keep what I raise. But if I do reach my goal, I get access to exciting opportunities. Please see http://rockethub.com/projects/1349-understanding-today-s-economic-transform…<http://rockethub.com/projects/1349-understanding-today-s-economic-transform…> to contribute and for more information -- -- Sam Rose Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation Tel:+1(517) 639-1552 Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451 skype: samuelrose email: samuel.rose(a)gmail.com http://futureforwardinstitute.com http://forwardfound.org http://hollymeadcapital.com http://p2pfoundation.net http://socialmediaclassroom.com "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition." - Carl Sagan

2 1

Re: [P2P-F] important debate: fighting cuts in an age of powerdown
by Michel Bauwens 19 Mar '11

19 Mar '11

Many thanks Andy, very useful, Michel On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hiya, > > Two related articles attached, one of them mine, the other is from an > autonomist on similar issues. > > Basically, I think the link between the cuts and the ecological issue is > the need to recompose everyday welfare networks and replace commodity with > subsistence production. > > The fight against the cuts is just, but I'm not sure it's winnable in the > North, as popular movements do not have the power to exert greater force on > states than the capitalist class can exert, and it's the kind of issue where > the state has the final say (it will cut or it won't), not the kind where it > has to 'enforce' its decision and faces an ongoing war of attrition. The > fight against climate change has been derailed by excessive reliance on the > state in the previous, less-austere period. The global states had their > chance in Copenhagen, they didn't take the threat seriously enough (unlike > the banking collapse), and the movement has gone the way of the US anti-war > movement after Obama sold-out, it lost momentum and collapsed. > > One of capitalism's plans for a new leading sector is 'ecological > modernisation', which is a dead-end ecologically (consumption gains are > offset by increasing consumption) but might work economically. Capitalism > might handle resource shortages by compressing its core still further, > abandoning increasingly large marginal zones as competitors for global city > status are weeded out (i.e. Brazil, Russia, India might go the way of > Africa). Historically though (see Sing Chew's work), economic systems tend > to collapse rather than adapt when they reach the limit of their > resource-base. We could see a systemic implosion, and the question would > then be what comes next. Chew says of previous phases that they've led to a > period of population decline, movement outwards from cities to surrounding > areas, diffusion rather than concentration of power, and the primacy of > local over global knowledge (being a modernist, he calls this a 'dark age'). > > > The other complication here is that, the cuts blip notwithstanding, social > movements (in the core countries) are at something of a low point. We're > still 15 years off when the next big movement wave should be, and there's > immense tactical difficulties: basically, the system has found ways around > existing movement tactics and the 'political opportunity structure' has > resultantly closed. In past waves, successful new tactics seem to begin at > the outlying points and move inwards, and I think the characteristics of the > next wave are already circulating in activist texts drawing on these > precursors: blockades or sabotage of key nodes (including virtual nodes), > the emergence of ungoevrnable zones in areas outside high-density economic > areas, diffuse networked communication (which needs a LOT of work to be > fully activism-friendly), secondary targeting of points networked to primary > targets (imposing costs leading to the isolation of targeted nodes), and > maybe the exploitation of information vulnerabilities. Anyway, I suspect > (following autonomism) that wave-switches happen in response to (and as > recuperation of) resistance waves, in which case the current crisis will be > a long one, stretching until the next wave appears. > > bw > Andy > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> http://transitionculture.org/2011/03/15/richard-heinberg-interviewed-in-tot… >> >> Dear friends, >> >> I have some difficulty in articulating the following issue, and hope you >> can help me in framing this in the right way, >> >> >> so, here is the problem, >> >> on the one hand, we have a classic systemic 'end of wave' crisis of >> capitalism, a bail-out of the financial class and austerity measures imposed >> on working people to fund it, hence, a natural mobilization to defend the >> population against those cuts by 'getting the money where it is' >> >> on the other hand, we have a much more systemic systemic crisis due to >> climate change, peak oil, etc ... and we have forces such as the transition >> movement, these people are saying, it's useless to fight the cuts, they >> reflect the end of growth, etc .. in one of the articles I read, I forgot >> about which town, you could see how these people were talking to the >> austerity-minded cost-cutting conservative city hall while there was a >> massive mobilization of the anti-cuts movement going on, >> >> so, we have 2 contradictory realities, yes, the current austerity is fake >> and the money is there but captured by the elite, but, yes, the deeper >> crisis is also there and we have to think about changing our economic system >> more fundamentally, and part of this is indeed changing the growth system, >> etc .. >> >> my hunch is that it is essential to be in solidarity with the workers and >> citizens in the anti-cuts movement, but this somewhat reflective attitude >> needs an add-on, a broader context, that reflects the second truth, but >> without putting us on the side of the plutocracy in justifying the cuts .. >> >> so, how to formulate the right frame that honours both truths? >> >> Michel >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- 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

feasible - legally - to set up an alternative government body in Wisconsin ?
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 18 Mar '11

18 Mar '11

It seems that governments are legal entities, similar to corporations. hence it may be worth to check the constitutionality of setting up another government, with support of the hundred thousand and more people converging in Wisconsin, to legitimize the alternative government. this alternative government, even if only symbolically, setting up its own laws. as the police itself seems to be unhappy with the current government, they can also claim allegiance to the alternative government... as for the judiciary, it may be of interest to check to whom they owe allegiance - based on the constitution, and based on the legitimacy of governmental corporations. it may also be possible, in case the judiciary does not want to recognize, in spite of potential constitutional right, a legitimized ( by the people ) government, that an alternative judiciary be set up. a complementary currency, too , may be set up, to back up a government set up by the people, for the people, legitimized by the people. more references about legal frameworks regarding current governments of the US, UK, and Germany, below. It seems like a good way of reclaiming "a" government - "(y)our own" - potentially more legitimate government. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:05 PM Subject: artivist project: set up complementary collapsonomics network of governments - as legal framework ... if a government is a legal framework similar to a corporation, it is possible to set one up , and organize ways to legitimize it... elections ? or "give shares of membership" providing access to decision making or delegation of decision making. more below... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:41 PM Subject: Legally : what is a nation state ? To: p2p-foundation <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org>, econowmix(a)googlegroups.com, hc_ecology(a)yahoogroups.com, sustainable_solidarity(a)yahoogroups.com Perhaps some of us know more about this topic. Is there a legal difference between the status of "Nation State" - its constitution, and its potential recognition by other nation states, and that of the legal status governing such nation State ? >From documents I provide below, it seems that some governments and the legal framework related to the functioning of the current operating states may actually legally be "Corporations" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation Hence what is the relation between the legal status of a Nation State, and that of legal frameworks assuming control over such Nation State ? And what is the relation between humans and/or legal persons, with the original nation state, or with the entity which controls in the form of a state the nation state ? Also , what does it mean regarding supra / trans-national contracts ? And what is the position of humans in relation to these ? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law ) And what does it mean in relation to "Property" , and the legitimacy of certain laws ? Do they apply ? Or do they only apply if we make a contract - in that case, what is considered as a contract which binds humans to certain of these legal frameworks ? For the United States, Germany, and the UK, I find some of the following documents... ---------------- US : http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm excerpts : *"In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title."* * * *"The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land."* --------------------- Regarding the UK : http://tpuc.org/node/558 http://www.tpuc.org/Acts_and_Charters John Harris - 'It's an illusion' talk at the Stoke 'Lawful Rebellion'Conference ---- Regarding Germany : http://vimeo.com/5506711 http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&b… Vortrag von Hr. Görlitz zur Rechtslage in Deutschland (2. Fassung mit besserem Ton) In diesem Vortrag beschreibt Herr Görlitz die Rechtslage in Deutschland. Die BRD wurde 1990 durch die Streichung des Geltungsbereichsartikels 23 des Grundgesetzes aufgelöst. Das Deutsche Reich existiert nach wie vor und wird wieder handlungsfähig gemacht. Heutige Beamte der 'BRD' sind seit Auflösung der BRD reine Privatpersonen. Das 'Bundesvermögen' und sämtliche 'Finanzämter' werden von der Firma 'Bundesrepublik Deutschland Finanzagentur GmbH' verwaltet. Gültiges Recht sind die Reichsgesetze, die auf der Weimarer Verfassung vom 11. Aug. 1919 fußen. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundgesetz_f%C3%BCr_die_Bundesrepublik_Deutsc…

5 10