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/