Dear Pat, The relevance of you not being a member but sypatisan can be minor. More important is the relevance of New Economy Fuondation, New Economy Coalition, The Next System alliances and all these relations to Fabians, democratic socialists and liberal global Capital is what matters. A google search for "new economy" "fabian society" displays this context. And further searched and Network mapping documents funding-politics relationships. So you can tell us better what is then the relevance of all these to critics of Crbyn and Commons vision, defended by those like Michel. Best, Orsan

On 03 Aug 2016, at 12:43, Pat Conaty <[email protected]> wrote:

Orsan

Not sure the relevance as I am not a member of the Fabians and never have been.

As I said, you asked for my view and personally I have found the guild socialists moving in the right direction. The paper I sent you sets this out and reasons for reviving the concept and practices of co-operative economic democracy and in particular a focus on reversing enclosure and overcoming wage labour and the slavery of interest based debt money.

Pat

...

On 3 Aug 2016, at 11:23, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks for your considered answer Pat,

In my reply I am not addressing you as an individual; but since I believe you play an important political role in the global network of Fabian Society, namely as coordinator of “New Economy Foundation” I do address with this email to the society you represent. So, this is to read as an open letter to the Fabians as a whole. I hope you would be so kind to pass my message to other Fabians, who are not in the addressed lists, hence who may be able to reads it.

First of all, I like the reader to read the basic information and fact of this influential society here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

and from their own website here: http://www.fabians.org.uk/

Your writings are collected there by Socioeco: http://www.socioeco.org/bdf_auteur-204_en.html

And this is your article for Fabian Society Review http://www.socioeco.org/bdf_fiche-document-3842_en.html

At the bottom of the website there are links saying that socioeco.org is part of Ripess Europe and Ripess International - which is represented by Jason Nardi. and Restakis is the part of the Synergia alliance around the same networks linked to Fabians; active in WSF, as well as other left wing networks at structural level.

Here is you again in ''New Era" network, linking India to United 'Kingdom' (then by force - today is a dissolving Kingdom).. https://neweranetwork.info/networkers/pat-conaty/

As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of clarity of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it; namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians. I sincerely think that nothing would be wrong if this was all, an innocent naive political view.. I mean if there was no massive funding from Royal family, massive global networking to support imperial policy of the West, hence being allowed access to politics at the highest levels.. As close relationship to Labour Party, from its very foundation, also a global university like LSE (a global complexity management center) -also from its foundation; these all increases this importance of Fabians in global politics (but not socialist, capitalist one).. Through this ties, people like Polanyi, Popper, Hayek, Coase, Rockefeller, Soros, Laszlo, mobilized... not only them but also ‘sort’ radical or less radical thinkers of Good Global Governance -like Graeber, Saskia Sassen, Susan George,.. etc. these take Fabians' closest connections at the heart of the Global Class War. That ‘s why I consider this open letter, and broader critics and exposition of Fabian’s and the power networks they involved as one of the most important tasks, for the good and real change.

More precisely; I believe and argue that the role that has been attained to Fabians was about regulation and control, in order to minimise the risk of too much of a radical change, that is to say regulation of or delaying too much extreme equality might be demanded or aimed at in the midst of the turbulence created by the global inta-capitalist class war. It is a kind of feedback regulator for the complex global capitalist system. To be more precise, the mission of the Fabians has been delaying of any genuinely radical attempt that would overturn the entire capitalist system; and steer it towards the direction that is really outside the capitalism (be it communism, commonism, real democracy, or name it).

Fabians played the key role in the reformulation and refoundation of Social Democracy, as Democratic Socialism, as 'Delayism'. The name of the Fabian Society, comes from the famous Fabius Maximus, also known as 'Fabius the Delayer'. It is because he was delaying the Roman mortal offence against Hannibal to crash him when the right time has come (what a metaphor). Here, in the 20th century, and today’s world at the edge of a third inter-imperialist and inter-capitalist war this metaphor that is used by Fabians as 'delaying' means the delaying of what Gramsci called 'war of movement', or emancipatory uprising and construction. Fabianism in this sense means an effort, or political project to lock the radical counter movements into 'position wars' mode. This role, as Bertrand Russell saw it and therefore decided to left Fabians, has been steering the world into World Wars in the 1900s. Since according to its meta-strategy of delaying full force attack on the global capitalist system, Fabians supported the Entente against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russell was totally right, Polanyi could not get it, Hayek and Popper must have sow it. Today the role Fabian's are playing is the same one, and this time they are serving to the arrive of the third inter-capitalist world war, by supporting liberal Western global capital against the Brics.

The Fabian Society was founded on 4 January 1884 in London as an offshoot of a society founded a year earlier called The Fellowship of the New Life and was dissolved in 1899. From the perspective above, I think this decision of seizing the "The New Life Fellowship" was a good one. Since the general mission of the society, identified with the symbolism as in "turtle" icon, or "ship in a wolf coat" (that was abandoned too); to a large extent brought about massive deaths during the first and second world wars. Russell was correct when leaving Fabians, but he had to expose his criticism louder.

In short, Fabians' service to imperialism help to take the world to first and second world wars, then their service in the US served to emergence of labour imperialism.. now it is serving to Western imperialism survival hence taking the world into the third imperialist war.. I am sure, the delayism of Fabians, tell it is better then full attack on the machine and kill it, let's delay the revolution and get the wars, let capitalism re-invent itself.. I think there is something seriously flawed with this delayism of the newer coming mortal attack in Fabius Lucius, Fabius' strategy was to do the attack when the time comes.. the time never comes for the Fabians, they aim to delay the full force attack even it is the highest time. This is why they are called 'Her majesty's' loyal opposition' -about their role in the foundation of the Labour Party.

I wonder if Corbyn is a Fabian, or he is a threat for Fabians that are leaving his team. I think if he is not a Fabian, and he can clean the Labour Party from Fabians, and expose the global relationships of the power structures/networks Fabian's involved he would make a great contribution for change, more than he could as prime minister.I believe this network includes LSE complex governance centre, Mont Pelerin Society, Club of Rome, Club of Bucharest, World Economic Forum, Trilateral Commission, Center of Foreign Relations, Bilderberg circle, Ford, Rockefeller, Soros Foundations, and other major liberal think tanks. The struggle these networks giving against the networks of power like Neo-cons, right-wing, as well as radical left wing needs to be openly publicly disclosed as well. Without this happening the world has never see a good chance, and the final attack that was prevented by Fabians (forever) will never take place. In a sense Fabian Society will succeed, but humanity will fail.

Please forgive me for this letter, but I sincerely believe beyond and over individuals, and their goodwill's, these organisations, societies, and networks, the use of funds and political tactics, even crimes they commit, suppress individuals with genuinely good heart and personality. If there is a ‘war of complexity management’, individuals become one of the variables in the management of complexities by complexity managers. This positivist approach defended by Madron, or used in his self-promotion to Corbyn, probably for the opening positions in the expert chembers around him, is not the way. The vision, that goes beyond this positivist understanding and sees all sides as part of one system, including those complexity managers, would bring about the global radical change that is bloody needed by anyone, for all species; the name or form is not important, communism, commonism, socialism.. Global elite will not be able to delay it forever, even with the generous help of the Fabian Society. The Next System will be build by those smashed by every new economy, and every next system.

Best,

Orsan

...

On 3 August 2016 at 00:25, Pat Conaty <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Orsan

Michel and I have been exchanging views for some while viz. personal thoughts about what is to be done. When I met you in Berlin in 2013 at the Economics of the Commons conference I very much enjoyed our discussion and hearing about Network Labor. So you asked for my perspective…….

I think there is a perennial truth and socialism at its best always has been linked to forms of co-operative economic democracy. In the debates about Fabianism, it was the guild socialist thinking and alternative that I found attractive. I still do.

I think the problem I have had with some of the modern commons conversation and dialogue is that many advocates are unaware of the risks of reinventing robust wheels. There is still a widespread lack of recognition that what comes around goes around and that the commons if it is to succeed for people and planet in this new century needs to connect with the co-operative commonwealth struggles of our ancestors and therefore that the past and the present need to be reconnected. Otherwise the hard fought wisdom from the past, a cultural vernacular that is precious, will be forsaken.

I did a paper for a conference in Montreal about 18 months ago that Michel has put on the Commons Transition site. It is two of three parts only - about the cardinal questions of land and money. Polanyi in his explanation of the double movement argued that for a Great Transition we need to take out of the market what Marx called the fictitious commodities. Polanyi agreed here completely with Marx and argued for the freeing up of land, labour and money by a political and structural reversing of enclosure. This is also the vision and practice of what EP Thompson showed as a struggle from our common history that focused on building co-operative commonwealth.

So you might find this three part essay of interest. I think it echoes in some ways at least the spirit of paper you sent me about trade unionism gone wrong. Each part of the essay is not long.

http://commonstransition.org/co-operative-commonwealth-de-commodifying-land-...

I have not included in this paper an analysis about labour but I have written about this elsewhere. But I really think Hilary Wainwright’s articles in recent years about Labour as a commons really would be what I would regard as a brilliant way of looking at this third part, about our collective selves and the future of work as a common good.

All the best

Pat

On 2 Aug 2016, at 09:22, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:

The thing is after reading Madron's critic of usual leaders and then reading Lilian Greenwood's speech, one (or I) thinks immediately that Lillan shows almost all skills of self-branding, her masculine tone in her self-marketing as natural born labour leader in Madron's sharp critics... I don't know why but somehow one gains more sympathy for Corbyn to be honest after reading this stuff. On the other hand I am highly critical about Madron's references like Koku and Kurzweil, they are similar to Rifkin; imagining perfect capitalism.

I think Michel's critical integral perspective which sounds more close to Tektological thinking is more useful to envision a genuine radical change; Pat you are supposed to be supporting from a left-socialist point of view. I have been wondering for a while about your ideas and views on Fabianism and Fabian society, if I may ask with this opportunity? And if you find Corbyn too left, of radical, or simply not as a good leader, and in what sense? Those points would make more sense since it sounds to me that those who are leaving Corbyn's 'experts team were close to your networks, around 'new economy'; so can that be the reason of your reserves on Corbyn?

Best, Orsan

On 01 Aug 2016, at 18:52, Pat Conaty <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Anna

Michel and I are discussing these matters with other colleagues. A close colleague, Henry Tam, who was a senior civil servant under Labour before 2010 and set up a creative Empowerment Fund for grassroots projects. This did lots of good work.

He has been hopeful about Corbyn. But having seen at first hand politicians at their worst and best he now has his concerns.

He shared this speech a few days ago from a Labour MP and active trade unionist. She highlights some things that Gary Younge raised his worries about.

http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour_...

Pat

On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:44, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks for these links Pat, and any others you think would be helpful.

Anna

On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:32, Pat Conaty <[email protected]> wrote:

Michel

Not sure about the internal politics within the team. A number left in the team are good experts.

But my point is that several elements have to be aligned. A new accountable leadership style for sure as the article you shared makes clear. Then a creative use of complexity theory in practice.

But also if the theory of new economics is not sound then this impacts on the programmes. Not due to leadership but because of a faulty understanding and analysis.

For example Richard Murphy from the UK Tax Justice Network was not selected to be in the Corbyn advice team whereas last summer he was guiding Corbyn on Peoples QE that was popular with people in the Labour party who voted for Corbyn. Since then these ideas have been not on the agenda and what Ingham calls for is not far removed from Murphy’s thinking and guidance.

All the best

Pat

On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:20, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:

thanks for the details Pat,

I remember critiques that Jeremy was not a good listener and did not work well with his advisory team,

Michel

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Pat Conaty <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Hi Michel

This is a good piece on complexity theory and participative politics that Anna Harris has shared. As I have mentioned, this way forward is great and also the work of Stafford Beer on viable systems theory for intensifying co-operative forms of democracy. But I only wish Corbyn was moving in this direction. Not questioning his good will to do so and his integrity of course but little evidence of this yet emerging. See the relatively recent Gary Younge article below when there were three leaders in the race for Labour party leader, now just Smith and Corbyn.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/corbyn-critics-destroy...

But in addition to complexity management and new forms of leadership, there is the need for a deeper understanding of economics and what is money. This question is the Elephant in the room as Geoffrey Ingham explained and that all socialists need to get to grips with. The Economic Advisory Committee advising Corbyn are all left of centre economists but even Piketty and Stiglitz have a poor analysis of What is money as Ingham highlights below.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/geoffrey-ingham/whose-money-is-it

Corbyn and other anti-austerity politicians thus lacks guidance on this question that is crucial for developing alternative economic strategies.

Ingham is a professor at Cambridge. He is a socialist and in his book, The Nature of Money, he shows that unfortunately Marx got the money question wrong. Despite some great insights, fundamentally Marx concluded that money was a commodity. He took this from Aristotle. The real truth is that it is not a commodity but a social technology as David Graeber has shown.

However as Ingham observes, this errant view of Marx has sent most of the left down the wrong road to understand money and hence most of the left is blind on this question. From a theoretical perspective this is a fatal flaw. Ingham argues so well that we need to revisit the What is money debates from the 1920s and folk like Gesell and also Douglas and social credit ideas as these show where the real answers are. Ingham calls for a public social partnership on monetary and banking reform to replace the oppressive and toxic public private partnership destroying both society and ecology and leading us in to relentless wars defending geopolitical turf over oil and other resources.

All the best

Pat

On 1 Aug 2016, at 09:16, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:

dear Pat, has anything been written on the contrary view that was reported on in that other discussion ?

Michel

...

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:

The Corbyn Model of Leadership Of all the people currently in leadership positions in a major political party anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn is the only one who shows the potential of being a leader who could begin to manage successfully the complex problems that all of our societies have to face in the coming decades.

Brilliant article, first I've seen really understanding what Corbyn is trying to do.

https://medium.com/@ROY_MADRON/the-corbyn-model-of-leadership-a7a006405f27#....

_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

-- 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/

_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour