I know this is going to sound arrogant and self-serving, but seriously, after ten years of research and engagement in two intense projects at nation-state and city level, I think we have a pretty good handle of the inter-relationship between commons, market and state; we pretty much know the most important elements of this relationship ... it's more a question now of making more things happen that exemplify it, as a reminder, in Ecuador we looked in-depth at how to create national knowledge commons, with the instutiional, regulatory and material conditions to make it happen, offering a specific methodology, and in Ghent, an institutional framework for public-commons cooperation at the city level, focusing on material provisioning systems, if you put the two together, and add John Restakis' developments on the same theme , focusing on the social economy, we have the basics at hand, this is why I think it is now vital to bring these insights to social-populist politicians, to give them a way forward beyond neo-keynesianism, at the P2P Foundation, feeling confident about the basic logic of commons-market-state cooperative institutions, we are now moving to the underlying social and ecological conditions that underlie such an institutional structure one is commonfare and the reform of social protection so that it can protect autonomous workers (and the care economy); the other is bioacapacity-based supply chains and accounting, it's gonna be at least a five year plan <g> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:52 AM, pat commonfutures < [email protected]> wrote:
Thanks Mike, Michel, Dirk, Stacco and Margie for the supportive feedback.
We need to fit together the commons, co-op and partner state jig-saw pieces. But how and Now? Let me widen the analysis and think how to turbocharge the superb bootstrap grassroots work in Barcelona, Ghent, Bologna and Preston. Bear in mind that Bruno Roelants is now head of the ICA and he supports the solidarity economy and has a growing interest in commons and co-op commons especially.
From an utter state of dire poverty and crisis, Preston is making a co-operative fight back. There are many post industrial towns in Northern France and other parts of southern and Eastern Europe precisely in this dire state today and without a commons co-op Plan supported by social investment they will continue to be lured by the far Right.
Councillor Matthew Brown in Preston has been inspired by the Evergreen Co-ops in Cleveland, Ohio and the work of Ted Howard at the US Democracy Collaborative. Ted has been to speak in Preston 2 or 3 times in recent years.
On the need for monetary and banking reform to complement the Preston set of ideas , here in Wales we ran a very successful Build a Co-operative Country conference last June and simply allowed the Community land trust groups, the social co-op groups for care services, the renewable energy co-ops, the housing co-ops, freelancer co-ops and others like this to tell their stories in a big plenary. This worked wonderfully well because the different co-op and commons innovators are so busy ploughing their own separate fields, they were not well aware of what their other comrades in arms were doing and succeeding with. If they were not aware, the wider pubiic is even less aware of a practical What if vision?
The politicians in attendance were very impressed with these commoner stories. All these projects are lacking in strategic investment badly and none has the scope to move from micro-level success to upping their game big time. We do not have the democratic financing infrastructure in place to do this. For example a recent report on renewable energy co-ops in Wales showed that they cannot aggregate easily to attract low cost patient capital from public sector pension funds that are looking to invest in non-fossil fuel alternatives. This got us thinking about how to put in place such a bridge.
During the Great Depression public banks like the early Bank of Canada created new money to invest in public services, housing, health services, rural revival, electrification etc. It worked.
Over the past 18 months we have been working on a public bank for Wales that could create money out of thin air and invest in the commons and co-op sectors big time. All the politicians of most parties say There is no magic money tree for social investment. This short article from Zoe Willams in the Guardian reveals the massive ignorance of MPs of all parties about how money is created. A good one this for the Common Transition Plan.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/shortcuts/2017/oct/29/ how-the-actual-magic-money-tree-works
We held a public meeting on a public bank for Wales last October and got to attend the Minister for Local Government and Finance and the chief economist for Welsh government. The research we had stimulated came out before this meeting and is getting on side our thinking. We are soon to complete another report on the public bank and money creation that the Minister has invited us to send him.
Ellen Brown at the Public Banking Institute in the US has joined our Public Banking action group and has been twice to Wales to talk.
Public banks that really create new money are a key piece of the jig-saw for commons. In our forthcoming report we are advancing the case for the creation of £1 billion of new money by a Welsh public bank from year 1 on a ratio of 5:1. That is five times new money created for patient social investment to the core capital in the new bank that we are inviting local governments in Wales to put up from say 5% of their annual capital budgets. Leverage this and you can get take-off locally and thereafter regional.
We need to operationalise Magic Money Trees at local government area levels across Europe.
Pat
On 31 January 2018 at 17:58 Michael Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
This is a brilliant article Pat. Thanks for sharing.
On Jan 31, 2018, at 6:21 AM, pat commonfutures < [email protected]> wrote:
In the UK it would be great if we had a supportive mayor somewhere like in Barcelona or the work in Ghent. One local government though that is going down this road is Preston. This article in the Guardian today tells the story.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/31/ preston-hit-rock-bottom-took-back-control
Pat
On 30 January 2018 at 20:01 Holemans Dirk < [email protected]> wrote:
Me too, I just bought a second-hand version of Henry’s book online
Michel: we can share it!
*Van: *<[email protected]> namens Michel Bauwens < [email protected]> *Datum: *dinsdag 30 januari 2018 14:10 *Aan: *pat commonfutures <[email protected]> *CC: *Simona Levi Xnet <[email protected]>, emanuele braga < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>, David Bollier <[email protected]>, George Papanikolaou <[email protected]>, Daniel Chavez <[email protected]>, Stacco Troncoso <[email protected]>, Fiona Dove <[email protected]>, Hazel Henderson <[email protected]>, John Restakis < [email protected]>, Holemans Dirk <[email protected]>, Alex Foti < [email protected]>, p2p-foundation <[email protected]>, Geert Lovink <[email protected]>, Margie Mendell <[email protected]>, Michael Lewis <[email protected]> *Onderwerp: *Re: My review (bauwens) of Alex Foti's General Theory of the Precariat
looking forward to Henry's book!
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:59 PM, pat commonfutures < [email protected]> wrote:
Michel
Thanks for this link. Just to let you know that the communitarian thinker and former UK civil servant Henry Tam is compiling a book on Reinventing Government. I am contributing a chapter on ideas like those I have shared and Anna Coote at New Economics Foundation is also doing a chapter on social commons. She is drawing from your work and David Bollier's.
Henry's book will come out later this year.
Pat
On 29 January 2018 at 13:27 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
thanks a lot Pat, very useful!
keeping track of 232 current commonfare initiatives here for just that reason:
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Category:P2P_Solidarity
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:33 PM, pat commonfutures < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Dirk. Alex and Michel
We need to be aware that public services as we know them had their origins in pioneering class struggles by commoners that developed the fundamental social economic innovations. We forget this out of ignorance and at our peril.
A great book on the history you ask about Dirk is Eric Hopkins' Working-class Self-Help in nineteenth century England. By 1900 there were 27,000 friendly societies providing a wide range of mutual aid services for funerals, for sick pay and also for small pensions. They date back in formation to the 18th century and many early trade unions before they were legalised after 1825 operated clandestinely as friendly societies. Also early co-ops used friendly society laws to form legally.
Alex you are right that social democracy emerged decades before 1945 and those who studied closely over a century ago mutual aid, friendly societies, co-ops and trade unions, like the Fabian socialists Beatrice and Sidney Webb, advocated that the emerging Labour parties should seek to collectivise the best practices of friendly societies and co-ops via welfare state practices to provide sick pay, retirement pensions, industrial injury payments and primary health care. The 1911 National Insurance Act in the UK provided these services in collective ways via the state in a three way contributory system into social insurance funds with the workers paying in a third, employers a third and the government a third. This was the deal with the state and from 1911 until 1948 - when the National Health Service widen coverage and health services comprehensively - the friendly societies were involved in the administration of the 1911 Act.
As Michel points out, trade unions in Belgium and in countries in Scandinavia still to this day play a key social security delivery role.
From 1948 as friendly society roles diminished as the state took all the roles over, the numbers in the UK have reduced now to only about 200.
Interesting to see that the Broodfonds or Bread Funds in the Netherlands developed after 2006 as 21st century friendly societies when the Dutch state ended access to sickness benefits for self-employed people. So where markets fail and states leave gaps as is increasingly the case since 2010, mutual aid re-emerges.
You are right Dirk, the dialectical tension between waves of commons movements and the state and how relationships are forged for better or for worse is key for developing strategies for the new commons movement.
Given that the public services required commons innovation and the current commons innovations need to spread, what the deal is with the state and especially municipalities is crucial for the emergence of a democratic, social and ecological economy.
Pat
On 29 January 2018 at 08:43 Michel Bauwens < [email protected]> wrote:
by the way, I just want to mention that the p2p foundation maintains a closed 'visioning' discussion list, in which high quality discussants are very welcome,
Stacco can add you to the list,
Michel
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Holemans Dirk < [email protected]> wrote:
Dear all,
Many thanks for this inspiring dialogue. As ecologist (director of green foundation Oikos and city councillor in Ghent), I see I can learn a lot from your contributions, and authors like GDH Cole and Clifford Douglas.
Being inspired by Polanyi, I am trying to connect his lines of thinking with the historical research on the three waves of commons in Europe since the Middle Ages. To reduce complex research to this simple line, one could argue that the democratic second movement of Polanyi correspondents with the second wave of the commons. By this I am very interested in what Pat writes on the “23,000 mutual friendly societies set up over decades of social movement struggles and almost all promoted and supported by diverse trade unions for their members”. Are there specific articles or books that documents these pre-war social movements in the UK?
Already many thanks
Dirk
*Van: *pat commonfutures <[email protected]> *Beantwoorden - Aan: *pat commonfutures <[email protected]> *Datum: *zondag 28 januari 2018 13:31 *Aan: *Alex Foti <[email protected]>, Michel Bauwens < [email protected]> *CC: *Simona Levi Xnet <[email protected]>, John Restakis < [email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Hazel Henderson <[email protected]>, Fiona Dove <[email protected]>, Holemans Dirk <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < [email protected]>, emanuele braga <[email protected]>, p2p-foundation <[email protected]>, George Papanikolaou <[email protected]>, Geert Lovink <[email protected]>, Daniel Chavez < [email protected]>, Margie Mendell <[email protected]>, Michael Lewis <[email protected]> *Onderwerp: *Re: My review (bauwens) of Alex Foti's General Theory of the Precariat
Hi Michel and Alex
The commons work in Ghent is great to see. Also the Bologna regulations work of Christian Iaione are needed to help commons and local government partnerships and social contracts to be negotiated.
Why GDH Cole and guild socialism ideas are relevant to the present is that Cole proposed in 1919 in his book on Guild Socialism Restated that guild congresses for economic democracy should complement local government and regional and national governments and that social economic actors involved in production and reproduction could be a co-operative economic counterpart to parliamentary democracy. Therefore economic democracy would become a separate form of democracy complementary to political democracy. A system of checks and balances.
Garden city ideas where all the land would be commonly owned and economic rent captured for residents transparently was a foundational concept for Cole for the guild assemblies locally.
Remember Polanyi showed that the capitalist system is oppressive and structured historically because people, money and land have been enclosed and commodified. What was interesting about the guild socialist ideas in the early 1920s that Bertrand Russell, RH Tawney and GDH Cole were working on is that the garden city ideas and socialist planning would take land out of the market for new housing, workspace, commons spaces etc, workplace democracy advancing then and across Europe would end wage labour and the further step would be pursued as Clfford Douglas argued by taking money out of the market by issuing social credit as a national dividend that would be locally managed by monetary authorities that could be part and parcel of the guild economic congresses so that underconsumption would no longer be addressed by more capitalist debt issuance by banks but by transparent monetary reform to democratise money.
Tawney and Cole did not push for what Douglas was arguing for which was a pity. Polanyi only wrote about the tripartite need to take people, money and land out of the market in his Great Transformation in 1944. But these three reforms are the bedrock for a commons mode of production to pursue structurally the paradigm shift to advance economic democracy and to secure co-operative commonwealth. Sadly Massimo De Angelis only mentions Polanyi in passing in his latest book and missed all this. Otherwise his book is excellent I think.
On your query about mutuals and co-op innovations and the doubt you have Alex about the state replicating these. Keynes's gets his ideas of 'cheap money' which is not the same as social credit from Clifford Douglas and Silvio Gesell. See the last chapter of the General Theory by Keynes.
In 1943 when the National Health Service was being designed, co-operative and mutual health services in the UK were patchy but being then provided by 23,000 mutual friendly societies set up over decades of social movement struggles and almost all promoted and supported by diverse trade unions for their members. There was an effort to incorporate these mutuals into the NHS but authoritarian socialists refused to allow this to happen.
Also if you look at the reconstruction of housing and new towns after 1948 in the UK, they used co-op Garden City ideas for guidance for public land and public housing design but left out the ecological dimensions and pursued post War reconstruction from the top down.
Pat
On 27 January 2018 at 19:40 Alex Foti <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Pat,
thanks for your observations on mutualism and the ecological and social rights to the city. i'm a big gdh cole fan, btw. the weekend has overwhelmed me with obligations. i ll try to come back to in more detail tomorrow with more time. however the only thing i m doubtful the fact that mutualism is replaced by the welfare state which was a way of neutralizing and institutionalizing the commonist and separatist tendencies of the working class. at least since 1919 it seems to me social democracy opted for state intervention rather than self-reliant mutualism (or worse, syndicalism).
best ciaos!
lx
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:27 PM, pat commonfutures < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michel and Alex
My two cents......
Enjoyed reading your review Michel and hearing loud and clear the comments from Alex. Glad to see you recognise strategically the role for economic democracy organisations to come together to develop commonwealth solutions. Challenge is to animate and mobilise co-ops, trade unions, mutual aid organisations and commons movements and other actors to cross connect.
Capital needs to be on tap not on top. Labour needs to hire capital. Thus economic democracy is the operative mantra. But how.....?
I think the analysis of Massimo De Angelis in Omnia sunt communia that focuses on commons solutions for provisioning to address precarious housing, precarious work, precarious social services, etc. is the way to increasingly Walk the Talk.
But so much of the infrastructure needs aligning to develop a generative system to build the new to replace the toxic old. In the period from 1910 to 1948 it was the working class self-organisations and partnerships with municipalities that co-developed a turn key system for affordable housing, mutual insurance services for access to health care, patient finance instruments, etc. As you highlight Michel, without this proving of the possible, the Post 1945 welfare states would not have been practical. History has airbrushed out of memory all the working class achievements leading up to social democracy's action to rebuild war torn Europe with guidance from Keynes. Keynes himself took credit for what commoners had innovated and brought into being over many decades.
But we are back to the same situation again.
To pursue pluralist commonwealth post capitalist futures, the facts are similar at least as a pattern to 1945...
Many good solutions that emerged out of commoner struggles since the 1970s now exist as viable and proven models. Examples include Community Land Trusts for housing and workspace, social co-operatives for care services, community renewable energy, freelancer co-ops, etc but we lack the general assembly of protagonists to plan and co-ordinate them all and bring them together into a viable system. Neoliberalism continues to repress and marginalise these Cinderella Liberties that if nurtured and united could tackle the multiplying wants that make no sense among economies of plenty perversely allocated.
The Garden City movement pioneers developed socialist planning guidance in 1906 which played a key role to unite the fragments. We need to revive democratic planning again and make this participative to set in train evolutionary urban and rural reconstruction and to help animate, activate and co-ordinate economic democracy in action. Garden cities were on the right road as they sought to unite urban and rural life in ecological resilient ways.
The guild socialist ideas of GDH Cole in the early 1920s are worth revisiting. As Danny Dorling shows in his book on the 1%, between 1918 and1978 social and economic inequality reduced across developing countries and indeed as forms of socialism advanced stage by stage.
Today socialism needs to be planned and re-implemented with deeper democracy methods and on a co-operative and ecological economics foundations to produce commonwealth via a commons mode of production. I look forward to reading your book Alex.
Thanks to you both for the joint inspiration.
Pat
On 26 January 2018 at 12:38 Michel Bauwens < [email protected]> wrote:
hi alex,
very happy to engage, and I fully understand the legitimacy of your strategic choices, though your vision of a successful new new deal is also a sign of optimism in itself .... I agree we have to fight for it
this is a very good overiview of the other polarity, I think at the p2p foundation, we are somewhere in between, even as we are very liberally cited in this overview of commons-based relocalization: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Networked_Cities_as_ Resilient_Platforms_for_Post-Capitalist_Transition#Excerpt
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Alex Foti < [email protected]> wrote:
Dear Michel, Dear Friends,
a trillion thanks for this thoughtful and appreciative review. i look forward to co-developing a veritable post-capitalist strategy by embodying the commons-based approach and i find your criticism of an excessive capitalist realism justified (lost a few nights' sleep about it, but i am very fearful of cryptofascist reaction, and think we can force liberal capitalism into a social compromise - which you're right would make funding and reclaiming the commons a central feature of society - and also i guess i wanted to avoid excessive utopianism given that current historical reality is so dystopian). again thanks for taking the time to read and engage with the book's arguments.
best milanese ciaos,
lx
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Michel Bauwens < [email protected]> wrote:
see also link here at https://wiki.p2pfoundation. net/General_Theory_of_the_Precariat#Evaluation
"This book is essential reading for all commoners that want to think through the right strategy for social change. It squarely places itself from the point of few of the new social groups (or class in formation, as Foti would have it) that have grown under the conditions of neoliberalism and its decline, or in other words under the emergence of cognitive capitalism or 'informationalism'. This key group are the various constituent parts of the precariat, all the people who can no longer work with dependable classic labor contracts and the steady income and protection deriving from it.
This book should be read through its end, i.e. chapter five, because its first four chapters on the precariat are only set in a more complex geopolitical context in that last chapter. To be honest, I was quite reactive at times during the reading of the first four chapters, because two very important structural elements were missing in his analysis. First is the commons itself, the other side of the antagonistic struggles of the precariat; and second is the ecological crisis, the very material conditions under which this struggle must occur today. Foti indeed calls for economic and monetary growth, and sounds like an unabashed neo-Keynesian but only in the last chapter stresses that this growth should be thermodynamically sound (i.e. he calls for monetary growth, but not growth in material services). Foti also almost completely ignores the role of the commons and 'commonalism' in the first four chapters, only acknowledging in a few parts of chapter 5, that it is a vital constituent part of the precarious condition. If you don't read chapter 5, you could be mistaken for seeing Foti's analysis as an exercise in re-imagining the class dynamics and compromises of the New Deal and post-WWII european welfare states, and has simply replaced working class with precariat, working class parties with social populism, and the New Deal with a social compact for green capitalism.
So, the fact that this is a remarkably thought out book about contemporary strategy for social change, should be tempered by a few paradoxes that the author has not completely resolved.
Indeed at the heart of the book lies also an enduring paradox: Foti calls for the most radical forms of conflict, and identifies with the more radical cultural minorities, acknowledging their anticapitalist and anarchist ethos, yet calls for mere reformism as a focus and outcome. This is therefore not a book about transforming our societies to post-capitalist logics, this is a book about a new reformism. This is a book against neoliberalism, not against capitalism. At times, it is plain 'capitalist realism', as Foti explicitly acknowledges he sees no dynamic value creation outside of capitalism. For Foti, it is clear, if sufficient conflict and precariat self-organisation can occur, then a new regulation of capitalism can occur. He justifies this by a detailed analysis of the different regulatory modes of capitalism (smith-ism, fordism, jobs-ism) and how they relate to the kondratieff economic cycles, drawing on the insights of Carlota Perez and others. Foti distinguishes crises of demand, where there is too much accumulation of capital, and not enough distribution. These crises he says, are essentially reformist crises, as people mobilize to restore balance in the redistribution, but not against the system per se. The crisis of the 30's and the crisis after 2008, are such crises, he in my view convincingly shows. Other crises are caused by a failing supply, due to over-regulation of capital and falling profit rates, such as the crisis of the 70s, and these crises, which are inflationary, are revolutionary. This distinction between crises of accumulation and crises of regulation, is in my opinion very insightful, and true. This recognition may of course be troubling, but if true, we have to take serious stock of it. We are simply not in revolutionary times, right now, but rather in a struggle between national populism and social populism. From this analysis, Foti then argues that the first priority is for the precariat to re-regulate for a distribution of wealth, much like the old working class achieved after WWII.
But even if we acknowledge this conjuncture, I would argue that Foti insufficiently balances his outlook between reforming capitalism and constructing post-capitalism, beween antagonistic conflict and positive construction of the new. He argues that without income, there can be no such construction. This is very likely true, so we need to rebalance redistribution, in a way that income growth can lead to immaterial growth that is compatible with the ecological limits of our planet, and use these surpluses to transform societal structures. Foti calls for social (or 'eco' populist movements and coalitions as the political means to that end, pointing to Podemos and En Comu, and perhaps Sanders and Corbyn, as such forces, supported by to be created Precariat Syndicates. He also puts forward the thesis that the enemy is national populism, an alliance between retrograde fossil fuel capitalism and the salariat, with on the other side a possible alliance of green capitalism (a real effort not a marketing ploy) with the precariat, with the former fighting for top-down coalition and the second for bottom-up regulation. This division of the working class is in my view way too stark, and perhaps even defeatist. I would very strongly argue to seek alliances and develop policies that can give hope to the salariat. The thrust of our work for the Commons Transition aims at precisely that. (elsewhere in the book, Foti does call for an alliance with progressive middle classes, but if these are not the workers with jobs, where are these then ?)
Now Foti correctly critiques in my view, people like Mason and Rifkin for failing to problematize the post-capitalist transition, they make it seem like an inexorable process if not affirming that we are already post-capitalist, as some others do, but in my view then in his turn he fails to pay proper attention to it. What if the re-regulation of capitalism doesn't work for example ? Then at some point, say in about 30 years, as Kondratieff cycles would indicate, we would still face a crisis of over-regulation, and a more revolutionary moment. For Foti, we have to take it on faith that green capitalism will be a successful new regulatory mode of capitalism. What if it turns out to be a unworkable compromise and that more drastic action is needed. But Foti has no faith in alternatives to capitalism, which means that the only alternatives would then be eco-fascism as a new feudalism with only consumption for the rich, lifeboat eco-hacking, a situation akin to that of medieval communes, or dictatorial eco-maoism, say Cuba on a global scale.
Contra this 'capitalist realism', our contention at the P2P Foundation is that post-capitalism is both necessary and possible, even if we recognize that today is a possible reformist moment in that evolution/transformation. In that context, the construction of seed forms, the recognition of other forms of value creation (which can be monetized!), of other forms of self-organization is absolutely a vital side of the coin in the dialectic of construction and conflict. Foti seems to forget that the traditional working class did not simply 'fight', but constructed cooperatives (both consumer coosp and producer coops), unions, parties, mutualities and many fraternal/sororal organizations. The very generalization of the welfare system was an extension by means of the state, of the solidarity mechanism of the working class, which had taken decades to develop. Also vitally, the identity itself of the working class was not just as a part of capitalism, but as a movement for another type of society, whether that was expressed through socialism, social-democracy, anarchism, and other variants. When that hope was lost terminally, that was also the end of the strength and identify of working class movements. There can be no offensive social strategy without a strong social imaginary, and mere reformist designs won’t do. So commonalism is not just something that we do when we come home from work, or tired from our conflictual organizing against an enemy from whom we want mere redistribution. On the contrary, it is vital part of the class formation and identity, this is why we stress our identity not just as precariat, which is a negative formulation that characterizes us as the weaker victims of the capitalist class, but as commoners, the multitude of co-constructors of viable futures that correspond to contemporary emancipatory desires. We cannot just trust green capitalism, we vitally need to build thermodynamically sound and mutualized provisioning systems as commons even if we have to compromise with capitalism. Post-capitalism should not be essentialized as something occuring 'after the revolution', but as an ongoing process, dynamically inter-linked with political self-organizing and conflict. Foti in this book, is only really good at conflict. Even if we look at conflict, I would argue that the strength of the reformist compromise after WWII was very much linked to the fear of the however flawed alternative that existed, and that the forms of compromise were the result of decades of invention of new forms.
If we take that view, then I believe the contradiction in Foti's book can be resolved. Indeed in that case we do not have to ask the radical precariat to give up it's values for a reformist compromise, but to productively combine radically transformative post-capitalist practice.
There is another issue with Foti's book. He very much stresses the superdiversity of the precariat, and the key role of gender and race/migration unity in their struggles. He also mentions en passant the need for a potential eurasian alignment between Europe and China , now that the Atlantic unity has been broken by Trump. But , at the same time, this is really a very eurocentric book, calling for a new compromise in Europe and 'advanced western states'. Obviously, since in the Global South it is the salariat and proletariat which is growing, there is a theoretical difficulty here. But what if a thermo-dynamically sound economy would require a cosmo-localization of our global economy, as we contend at the P2P Foundation, combining global sharing of knowledge with substantial relocalization of physical production (as even big bank reports now recognize) ? Only if we recognize this, can we actually have a new global view of solidarity, as both elements benefit workers, salaried and precarious, in the whole world.
So, in conclusion, I find Foti's book to be an excellent first half of a book, which would have been much better and sound, if it had more extensively struggled with the commons equation of the precariat. The commons is not something we do 'afterwards' , after a successful New Green Deal, it is is something that is as ongoing and vital. Theoretically, in a few paragraphs at the end of the book, Foti seems to recognize it, but it is not integrated in his strategic vision, or only marginally.
Readers who miss this aspect, could look at the ten years of research and analysis we have conducted on that other half of the equation, at the P2P Foundation. We may have the other weakness though, and in fact we purposely have focused not on the conflict part, which is the natural inclination of the left and needs no help, but in pointing out how any self-organization, and construction of the commons, which inevitable comes with conflict, is just an essential part of the programmatic alternatives of the precariat. Not just as proposals of electoral parties and syndicates, but as expressions of actual practice. Our orientation is to try to achieve a greater understanding by emancipatory forces, of both the salariat, the precariat, and progressive entrepreneurial groups, of the importance of integrating the commons as a programmatic element in their struggles, and their proposals. We will probably stick to this bias towards the constructive side of the equation, tempered by a full awareness that this is by itself insuffient, and requires the kind of understanding of struggle, and its attendant strategies, as provided by Foti.
In conclusion, Foti's enduring quality is to have worked out systematically, what the conflict part of the equation entails, and that is a very important achievement. Bearing in mind what we think is missing in this book, there is much to be learned, and I believe the different perspectives and different weaknesses in the approaches of people like Foti and the P2P Foundation (and other) commons-centric approaches, there is room for a lot of convergence and mutual enrichment."
--
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
--
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
--
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
--
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
--
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/