Dante asks: <Michel, are you supporting a distributed paradigm, and eventually using "the partner state" to support such distributed paradigm ? With commons, imho, being a tool that enables such distributed paradigm... ( vs imposed dependencies using artificial scarcity to maintain specific control ) I can understand how one would want to use resources currently available through a "State" power arrangement, especially if one has access to it, to support distributed and commons approaches. Now the question I have, also based on another recent thread on Michel's fb ( https://www.facebook.com/mbauwens/posts/10153639014410548 ) , is : do Michel, and other people on this "commoning" list ( and p2pfoundation list, which I add in cc ) still actively support or *believe in supporting a reduction on centralized dependencies , co-creating towards more viable distributed approaches*, even if both co-exist ?> to go to the crux of the matters, my position on distributed/p2p/commons may have been refined and evolved over the last few years, but has not fundamentally be changed, to make it short: i have never been an anarchist, or a 'communization' supporter, i.e. the belief that one can transform society directly from state-protected capitalism to a full p2p/commons society without transition so in short, I believe we are moving towards distributed mechanisms as the main organizational form of society, and that we have a good chance that our society/civilisation will become p2p/commons-centered or oriented but I repeat, the state exists because it is an absolutely necessary mechanism in an unequal class society; the alternative being not no-state, but failed states with private violence of the ruling classes; thus the majority of the people have little choice than to fight for the state, and transform the state this is the concept of a partner state, a democratic state form, controlled by transformative social majorities which creates the conditions of its own diminishment, if not disappearance, to the degree that society can create functional equivalents .. I believe the best approach to this will be the commonication of public services and the renewal / deepening / transformation into real democracy and that this will be achieved bottom up by reconstituting social movements on a p2p/commons basis, through local civic allianceso of the commons allied to chambers of the commons using social charters to create new political majorities; and on the nation-state level, and beyond, through global coaltions of the commons there is no historical precedent for total domination by one relational/economic form to the expense of all others, rather, we see a succession of dominant social forms which influence the others .. thus, a commons-centered society is not a society where there are only commons, but where the commons form is dominant and the other forms adapt to it, this is why it is likely to see the commons become the dominant social form of productive civil society, allied with a mutualy coordinated ethical economy, and an enabling partner state form links http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/proposed-next-steps-for-the-emerging-p2p-and-c...; http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012416102253184145.html ; http://www.shareable.net/blog/blueprint-for-p2p-society-the-partner-state-et... short summary: http://english.lasindias.com/michel-bauwens-and-the-new-socioeconomic-altern... http://p2pfoundation.net/Partner_State ; http://p2pfoundation.net/Public-Commons_Partnership On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michel , ( cc: p2pf list - this post coming initially from commoning list )
I did not mean that families need be the basis of some ideal institutional arrangement.
There are, as far as I understand, various cultural models regarding families ( including old matriarchal models, such as the Mosuo ) , and they themselves seem to be evolving over time.
Hence me bringing forward "culture" vs "institutions" in my last post, and "image" vs potentially experienced realities.
By the way - a classic ? - : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaHMgToJIjA
*Debord traces the development of a modern society in which authentic social life <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_relationship> has been replaced with its representation: "All that once was directly lived has become mere representation."[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle#cite_note-Thesis1-1> Debord argues that the history of social life can be understood as "the decline of being into having, and having into merely appearing."[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle#cite_note-2> *
Yet when looking closer at the ( wikipedia ) definitions, I sense that we could twist my initial understanding of the word "institution" and talk about "distributed institutions".
Initially I made the interpretation of institution as being a centralizing hierarchical structure. I guess we can have authoritarian cultures, and self organizing cultures, too.
Cultures of self organization exist. From my understanding, a struggle between centralizing institutions, and self organizing cultures, has been existing for some time already...
( if other people on this list want to bring up references, feel free to do so - I do not want to enter the historical debate right now. I guess the Spanish civil war may be one case scenario ? )
Imho, here is an ideological choice to be made, as for what paradigm one wants to support.
Michel, are you supporting a distributed paradigm, and eventually using "the partner state" to support such distributed paradigm ?
With commons, imho, being a tool that enables such distributed paradigm... ( vs imposed dependencies using artificial scarcity to maintain specific control )
I can understand how one would want to use resources currently available through a "State" power arrangement, especially if one has access to it, to support distributed and commons approaches. Now the question I have, also based on another recent thread on Michel's fb ( https://www.facebook.com/mbauwens/posts/10153639014410548 ) , is :
do Michel, and other people on this "commoning" list ( and p2pfoundation list, which I add in cc )
still actively support or *believe in supporting a reduction on centralized dependencies , co-creating towards more viable distributed approaches*, even if both co-exist ?
Or did some people on these list, since I started interacting with some of you over the last years, give up on such vision ?
also see comparative table on : http://p2pfoundation.net/Festivalism
I do not believe we need to remain within status quo ... I also believe in us being co-creative agents ...
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote:
I have my doubts that family and friends can substitute for institutional arrangements,
the workers had friends and families, but that wasn't enough, they created voluntary fraternal organisations, unions, parties, mutualities, coops and the rest (which is the necessary work I'm alluding to)
but even that wasn't enough, as volunary association only reached a small fraction of the workers, which is why they fought for universal policies, which gave us the welfare state
this may not be the model for the today (though I think the partner state is post-welfare, i.e. it builds on it), but temporary assemblies based on consensus won't make the grade either ..
Michel
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michel
my feeling is that you mistake image and reality in this last reply of yours.
when movements are not visible, it does not mean they are not present, or active.
as you and many of us may know and experience, much of the economy is supported by non recognized, "invisible" contributions, such as the role of family and friends supporting each other.
From my point of perspective, it is important to understand cultural shifts, rather then visible organizations. Actually, we can move away from seeing it with organizations all-together, providing we develop the capacity to ( self)organize, including through the use of the internet and other means of communication.
Facilitating self organization can spark empowerment in densifying the interconnection of alternatives you and others document via the p2pfoundation, which in turn can further empower a homebrew industrial revolution / viable ( not debt dependent ) alternatives.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Michel Bauwens < [email protected]> wrote:
dear Anna,
I agree that constructing alternative livelyhoods is an important priority, but what about collectively organising social movements that are capable of solidarity ?
isn't that also a failures, historically, social movements were based on membership, and through this institutionalisation, they were able to support long-term actions ..
now, occupy/15m types movements are able to organize and scale rapidly, but what seems problematic is the capacity to endure ...
have individual livelyhoods may not be enough, social movements themselves need to have means to support actions in the long term
if I had time in 2014, which I haven't, I would focus on creating such a solidarity mechanism, and turn the p2p foundation into one, it would be a mixture of 'p2p factoring' to equalize revenue over the long term for the individuals involved, and solidarity mechanisms between individuals .. it would be a system available for all peer producers,
Michel
Michel
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Wolfgang and Dante, Much the same feeling of abundance you are talking about was expressed in the Occupy movement in many different countries during 2011/12. Probably you know all about them.
http://takethesquare.net/2011/07/15/how-to-cook-a-pacific-revolution/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement
In London at St Paul's there was a feeling of welcoming everyone, Food and shelter were freely available, in the People's Assembles everyone had a voice, and was listened to. There were study groups, a mini bookshop and university, with numerous talks on many different topics, women's groups, and a newspaper was produced. Empty buildings were occupied and used for conferences, child minding, yoga, meditation, etc.This was reproduced on a smaller scale in many cities across UK, and around the world. It was a spontaneous example of instant community building. They tried to link up with Trade Unions, and support strikes, Some groups still continue to function, though without living on the streets or in the square.
But to my mind the main reason why it was not sustainable was because they were living on charity, they raided dumpsters for food, and much was given spontaneously, but there was no real relationship to the earth and producing their own energy/food/water/waste disposal, etc. What is needed is an alternative system, which obviously lends itself to more rural areas, which is where most communities are that have survived, rather than in the cities,
I would also agree with Michel, that what he calls the 'system inside ourselves' needs attention. Activists often concentrate on changing the society without understanding the need to also focus on the oppression we have internalised within ourselves (Paulo Friere - Pedagogy of the Oppressed <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Freire>) and which we take with us into new freer structures. Living and sharing with others requires a new consciousness, which may account for the failures which Michel cites. But re-introducing some authoritarian structure avoids meeting the challenge of learning the new language which is required to live in community. Any attempts even if they 'fail' are worth doing.
Anna
Thank you Dante for sharing all these ideas and links! Very interesting.
I'll add some of those links to the Commons Abundance Network website.
The nomadic people can help weave together the initiatives going on in different places, to transport ideas from one place to another - especially such ideas that require practice to work, that cannot be simply put into words but that have to be lived. Such conveyance of ideas, tacit knowledge, skills often takes time, so it can't just happen at conferences or workshops, but may take some days or weeks of working/living together.
Nomads have also been seen with great suspicion by states ever since states emerged, because they are almost impossible to control. But they always existed on the geographical and other margins of the state, and even throughout their territory, because they can be essential for human interaction across distance. They help create dynamism.
I'm not sure how to follow up further on this right now, but I think it would be very interesting to meet at some point. Since you apparently spend some of your time in Leipzig, maybe the next time I am in Germany we can meet?
Wolfgang
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] on behalf of Dante-Gabryell Monson Sent: Sat 12/28/2013 3:52 AM To: [email protected]; p2p-foundation; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [commoning] [P2P-F] The Co-operative University (Hoeschele,Wolfgang)
Hi Wolfgang,
Thank you for sharing your article<http://www.scribd.com/doc/49712621/Making-Place-for-Abundance >- it overlaps with approaches I like to take.
I see a number of potentially overlapping and emergent "layers". I like to hear from other people's dreams or personal experiences.
I see the potential for an understanding of distribution / aggregation layers, mutually empowering each other in an emergent way, building up critical diversity for further emergence, resilience, and ( ideally ? ) viable systems.
I ll be happy to map out our non linear understanding. ( a mapping tool where we can export our data ? )
*// in advance, apologies to Silke - this will be a long post with a lot of links //*
Some layers I experiment(ed) with , followed by a few projects.
I want to talk about Nomadism, as it embodies imho an understanding of distributed systems - understanding I wish to use even when not moving ( geographically ).
I see *layers of distribution and aggregation mutually empowering each other in an emergent way.*
Short, medium and long term approaches , and resilience through their overlap, can also be taken into account.
I want to bring forward potentials for synergies and emergence ( based on "critical diversity" ? ), and using Integral City<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_City>and some research ( if one can call this research ? ) I did or am doing, to compare or apply it to.
///
*- Nomadism :*
*- it can imho be translated into the experience many more have, for example at a city scale , or also via "seminar hopping" lifestyles , movie production lifestyles, etc -*
talking from personal experience of a type of nomadism based on a low ( monetary ) threshold ( hitch hiking ).
I would aim at experiencing a flow of temporary autonomous zones ( often events ), hitch hiking from the one to another, taking into consideration a "logistics of options" to direct myself across europe. ( moving east or west, north or south, depending on how events may seem to empower more options for intentional convergence and supporting needs at later stages )
I am glad Wolfgang mentioned "non places". Much of the time was spent crossing "non places", moving towards aggregators where, for a moment, some shared "warmth" could be experienced.
Nomadism ( especially moneyless , or almost moneyless ) , in my view, embodies *an experienced understanding of a distributed system of distributed systems* : hitch hiking as intentional distributed system - used as a layer to facilitate access to - ... hospitality as a distributed system - being hosted for a limited amount of time - ... which can empower meeting people, which itself can lead to events , to shared learning, distributed information networks, etc ... each of these potentially empowering distributed intentional "tribes".
Such social capital constantly being worked on - if not, the energy imho dissipates over time.
Such understanding of nomadism ( / of distributed approaches ) can be applied within more specific geographical environments, such as a particular city itself. I guess others wrote about this ... ( Negri, Hardt, ... )
I personally like the contents of this site : http://nomadology.com/
It is important , imho, to reduce "empty places" and time ... as to make it viable. Focusing on places where there is a higher density and diversity of mutually empowering potentials, that can , even if one uses a temporary autonomous approach, further feed other processes and enable a continuity of flow.
This is some of my shared experience of too much "spreading out" :
http://sharewiki.org/en/Beyond_Road_Burn_Out
http://hitchwiki.org/en/Aimless_trajectory
Convergence may be possible in cities - yet the cost of space , in monetary terms, or of securing access to space ( if one squats ) is often very high, itself leading people to allocate their time to service such monetary cost, reducing availability, and increasing the potential for "empty places" ... or "empty social places", as people are "too busy" ...
Finding distributed approaches to use such spaces and generate spaces on top of existing infrastructure , as to converge social networks / aggregate, may be one approach. Narratives imho also play a central role in such flows of aggregation. Time, too, plays a role. High turnovers in certain cities may not enable long term continuity or development of projects, unless a combination between longer term residents and short term residents can be found.
Planning is not always possible when there is such constant reshuffling - hence the potential for stigmergic information tools to manage logistics of options and generate flow and emergent collective intelligence.
///
As it requires constant work on social networks, but also as I sense there is a need to create reference points for oneself to return to, aggregators which can overlap as to enable continuity , rather then leaving empty spaces of nothingness,
after 5 years on the road I needed to find solutions for places of unconditional return.
A tribe , even if it morphs, yet enables shared intention, can be such "home" - even if and when it moves in space. Sometimes families can represent such form of tribe, yet in western societies , imho, families end up being instrumentalized in favor of dominant socio-cultural narratives. In some cases, people like me who wish to generate alternative / less coercive narratives may end up marginalized from both society and family.
Underlying logic that I notice from people in mainstream narratives being : "if I "have" to do this, why would s/he not , hence I can not support him, as it would furthermore requestion my own sacrifices over time to survive in this system". Not all adopt such stance - and it is interesting to understand what processes or contexts opens people up ...
//
I see a need for overlap in terms of time frameworks.
At casarobino ( a nomadbase.org which hosted over 1000 people in a small flat over a 3 year time framework ), I noticed how overlap between short term ( a night or two ), medium term ( a few days to a week ), and longer term ( a few weeks ? ) residents enabled transfer of self organized cultures and information needed for such self organization, and how it enabled some form of fluidity in terms of internal social dynamics. Furthermore, the casa seemed to serve an aggregation role, enabling a place of return on a longer time framework, leading to individuals coming back to the space, feeding and at the same time maintaining what imho looked like intentional subcultures enabling its self organization. ( may be interesting to study this further in depth : the role of such aggregators, and intentions that may serve as shared engagment and underlying social contracts )
///
For the moment, debt seems to be one of the powerful forces leading people to be prepared to share engagement / generate social contracts. ( often generating more centralized control and artificial scarcity ? )
To free ourselves from ( monopolistic and hierarchical ) debt information systems of control, I sense we need to generate alternative distributed engagement tools.
Reification is imho risky business ( in terms of control - see this article< http://www.academia.edu/4498786/How_does_reification_ensure_our_wilful_subor... > ) , yet worth experimenting in a distributed form - to facilitate temporary aggregation , as stigmergic tools ? ( hence mentioning the netention research, which also includes understanding regarding Linked Data, ... )
Yet, indeed, "places" can be aggregators. I see the risk of "institutionalization" of places ( and centralized control )
Potentially, such institutionalization of spaces can be ok as long as networkes are not enclosed within it, and that such networks can access sufficient diversity, as to never depend on any one source ... yet be able to build on top of institutionalized infrastructure, although I do not see this as a solution. Ideally, one would aim at enabling distributed forms of ( temporary ) infrastructure away from institutional influence and conditions.
In some cases, there may be potential to support a distributed commons through institutional support, playing on the strategic interests of specific institutions in doing so - yet rarely does this seem to come, imho, without a cost / conditions. Mapping externalities can be a potential of tools such as suggested by netention research - including practices visualizing open value networks ?
///
Here is some research ( draft ) I did as to attempt such approach in Leipzig.
http://sharewiki.org/en/Leipzig_project
The idea being to benefit from existing infrastructure, at a lower cost ( in terms of debt ), and creating a sufficiently great diversity and amount of individual projects, as to build distributed systems on top of the proposal of the usership of a living space
Prices in Leipzig now seem to have increased - so I needed to change approach.
///
Using the potential for FabLabs / local small scale manufacturing based on open source research and development,
I imagine using vacant spaces ( in urban or countryside environments ) to build up temporary housing.
Eric H. used the terms "pop up villages" and "furnitecture" ( portemanteau for furniture and architecture )
see : http://sharewiki.org/en/Spime_Housing
It can include approaches such as wikihouse ( http://www.wikihouse.cc/ ) , ... Ideally, I imagine modular and parametric approaches ( I noticed some designer and architect active on Edgeryder forums think so too )
Some cities, such as Brussels, see imho high turnovers ( 15 to 20 percent of its population annually ? ). There is a lack of housing, prices are rising as population increases, etc
In such kind of context, I also see the potential for some of the approaches expressed earlier on ,
using the potential of massive amounts of vacant space ( for example : over 2 million square meters of empty office space )
to generate temporary contracts where temporary structures ( furnitecture / urban pop up villages ) can be set up, as some form of temporary living.
For example in Brussels : http://www.annedoloresmarcelis.com/index.php?/camping-town/
Various subcultures can / are converging and overlapping, with each having high turnovers, or people keeping a base while living nomadic lifestyles - for example dancer networks, theatre networks, but also all kinds of students, people doing internships, people on short term contracts for international institutions or businesses, etc
The environment itself can generate new layers and opportunities.
Beyond reducing costs / increasing quality of life with limited monetary income via a sharing economy approach,
it can be about generating conviviality , liberating time by reducing costs, and increasing potential for interactions around shared intentions or interests.
Freed time opens up potential for participatory action research and learning.
Approaches that combine subcultures and generations can also be adopted. It can be an evolution from the "co-living" approaches which have permeated into many urban living / social practices.
In effect, such types of temporary spaces generating defacto "free schools", some of them leading to "project incubation"
Also see :
http://opendoor.io/ --> projects
///
I wanted to generate such spaces for a number of years,
yet I realize that a more specific and easily understood narrative is needed to enable shared intentional engagement.
A narrative for a "school" can be an example of a way to bootstrap such engagement. Incubators , coworking spaces , or even, in the countryside, permaculture or construction / renovation projects can all be narratives attracting people for a certain period of time.
Yet often there needs to be a "spark", and the threshold for such spark often requires a minimum of resources ... which itself already requires engagement.
Although I shared this link earlier on , also see :
http://emergentbydesign.com/2012/01/08/93-superhero-schools-collaboratories-...
///
Convergences such as http://bwcd.vdcn.org/doku.php
seem to already be a filter for those ready to engage in setting such prototypes... hopefully building on the experience of past "communes", but hopefully also enabling neo nomadic / distributed overlap, as explained in this mail.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Hoeschele, Wolfgang < [email protected]>wrote:
> Thank you for your thoughts, Anna, Dante, Wouter! > > Something that I wrote that resonates with what you are saying, Dante, is > here: > http://www.scribd.com/doc/49712621/Making-Place-for-Abundance > > And of course, at the Commons Abundance Network, we are seeking to provide > links to any initiatives of the types that you mentioned, and develop our > network as a virtual collaboration space to help such things develop. The > more networking there is among such initiatives, both online and in actual > places, the more they will be able to coalesce into real alternatives. > > Wolfgang > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] on behalf of Wouter Tebbens > Sent: Fri 12/27/2013 4:54 PM > To: Dante-Gabryell Monson > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [commoning] [P2P-F] The Co-operative University (Hoeschele, > Wolfgang) (Hoeschele, Wolfgang) > > Dante, > > I love the idea of such "uncompromised temple". It would be a reference > site where so many free/libre/open/commons-governed/knowledge initiatives > would come together. > > Ideally it would be in a bottom-up organised country. And it would of > course be a node in the distributed network of already existing nodes. > > Some would spend more time their while others, even with a longtime > commitment, would only come there physically from time to time. Teachers, > learners of all disciplines would join in special sharing sessions to > construct collective knowledge and common projects. > > As you say, if such initiative can be seen as a kind of insurance, it will > be easier for some to invest/contribute. The transition is probably not > going to be easy for many people, so assuring some basics would be helpful. > > I need to continue other conversations right now, but the ideas discussed > here have my interest. Thanks and best wishes for sustainable and solidary > systems. > > Best > Wouter > > Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> escribi?: > > >_______________________________________________ > >commoning Mailingliste > >JPBerlin - Politischer Provider > >[email protected] > >https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning > > > _______________________________________________ > commoning Mailingliste > JPBerlin - Politischer Provider > [email protected] > https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning > >