---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michel Bauwens <michel@p2pfoundation.net>
Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Continuing to fill in the context

I'll share my perspective on this, which may not be that of the others copied in,

my first inclination today is that the focus needs to be on constructing commons, immaterial and material, everywhere we can, and to create vehicles so that this allows the creation of livelihoods and the self-reproduction of the commoners. While the struggle between labor and capital remains a reality as long as the current political economy dominates, I think personally that all struggles that focus on bringing more labor into subordinate working relations in view of redistribution, are no longer operative, and that we must focus on counter-economic networks, with decommodified cooperative labor co-constructing commons. This means, as first suggested by Pat Conaty on this list, to create a in-between between the commons and capital, i.e. to focus on cooperative accumulation. But that cooperative accumulation can no longer be merely a coop that competes on the capitalist marketplace, but a coop that co-produces commons, and works with non-capitalist capital in a non-capitalist market. This means concretely working on the creation of entrepreneurial coalitions that are co-dependent and organized around the commons that they are co-creating.

Concretely, at the territorial level, this looks like what Stephanie Rearick is doing in Madison, https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/100-women-who-are-co-creating-the-p2p-society-stephanie-rearick-of-the-mutual-aid-network/2015/07/18, or what Marion Rousseaux is trying to do in Lille with Encommuns.org https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/100-women-who-are-co-creating-the-p2p-society-marion-rousseaux-on-the-commons-in-lille-france/2015/07/25, i.e. create interlocking value chains for the cooperative commonwealth, at the local or the translocal level.

At the more 'trans-national' level, this means a direct focus on the creation of phyles, i.e. ethical, 'generative' business networks that sustain a community and its commons. This means projects like lasindias.net, enspiral, ethos, and others. (marty, you'll find descriptions of all those in the p2pfoundation.net wiki, via the search box on the top right)

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Marty Heyman <marty.heyman@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi to the others on the list.

My quibble, such as it is, is that Capital (Finance) pervades and largely controls … especially “the conversation.” A program to reverse its enclosures of the economic, political, and social spheres would appear to need a core of equally committed and motivated strategists with the resources to create a contrary “movement” to mobilize wealth, power, and public sentiment. Absent the “Davos” of anti-Capitalism (most importantly it’s “core team”), I don’t know how to unseat them and their “system.”

We need to continue to educate me on the philosophical underpinnings of terms like “the common good”. Language that feels like it pits “the common good” against “the private good” most broadly seem overly broad. Certainly the “common good” is the aggregate of the “private good”(s) of some collection of persons (and institutions). The usage here seems to want to exclude the “private good” of Finance, Capital, and Corrupt Politics …but such distinctions are hard to draw accurately as the Commons (Co-operative) and Solidarity movements rely heavily on Capital from somewhere for seed money.

Finally, not all the “Externalities” lead to desertification and useless waste. Vast bodies of code, design, and other technological artifacts are abandoned by Capital and Finance to our “Digital Commons”. I often think of Open Source Software as much a vast scrap-heap of discarded and abandoned code as I do a bazaar or innovation. There is too much redundant, self-gratifying “Innovation” and not enough refinement of the material already just sitting there waiting to be improved. I think, ultimately, we are seeing much the same with agricultural lands in climate zones considered non-optimal for industrial agriculture. Opportunities abound for self-directed, democratically governed initiatives and ventures IMHO.

—
Marty Heyman
510-290-6484