Transnational and P2P Commons Transitions
< Today, you can in real time collaborate with agency that would in the past seemed opponent to you politically; like Phorudon and Marx (anarchism vs communism), Lasal and Spartakists as well as Lenin and Kautsky (Socialism vs. Social Democracy), as well as all the following generations of left and progressive fracitonalism. This made possible for capitalism to assert itself as an irreversible and immortal historical structure.> Dear Orsan, I'm not sure how to understand that argument. I would say yes, networks function by affinity and seek commonality for joint action, and much of the earlier antagonisms seem antiquated. I think it is also a epistemological and multi-perspectival or trans-paradigmic issue: do we have to agree with marx 100% and reject Proudhon or rather can we expect that there is truth in various positions ? Are all the debates and antagonisms of the 19th and 20th cy fully operational today ? But I'm not sure how this is related to 'made it possible for capitalism to assert itself" How is the fact that say anarchists and communists can now talk to each other and transcend former antagonisms, related to capital's self-assertion ? I fully agree with your last paragraph: <" as long as we are doing trans-level and multi-dimentional practice of community/network building and interlinking work (allowing empowerment of ourselves and all the nodes simultaneously), it does not matter that much what we have as personal visions, preferences, expectations, predictions, so on.. about the future and nature of transition. The previous organisational forms, like part, platform, block, front, did not allow such collaborative and egaliterian ethical alliances. Now it is more possible then before, not perfectly smooth of course. With the 'quantum-logic' I was reffering this new possibility. This is an outcome of the technological-communicational paradigm shift, and at the moment it works for the advantage of the ruled, yet it might not last long."> -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* 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/
< Today, you can in real time collaborate with agency that would in the past seemed opponent to you politically; like Phorudon and Marx (anarchism vs communism), Lasal and Spartakists as well as Lenin and Kautsky (Socialism vs. Social Democracy), as well as all the following generations of left and progressive fracitonalism. This made possible for capitalism to assert itself as an irreversible and immortal historical structure.>
Dear Orsan,
I'm not sure how to understand that argument. I would say yes, networks function by affinity and seek commonality for joint action, and much of the earlier antagonisms seem antiquated. I think it is also a epistemological and multi-perspectival or trans-paradigmic issue: do we have to agree with marx 100% and reject Proudhon or rather can we expect that there is truth in various positions ? Are all the debates and antagonisms of the 19th and 20th cy fully operational today ? But I'm not sure how this is related to 'made it possible for capitalism to assert itself" How is the fact that say anarchists and communists can now talk to each other and transcend former antagonisms, related to capital's self-assertion ?
From the communist manifesto to first international, from Erfurt and Gotha to Comintern the discussion between theses and factions, being formed among groups of friends, based on one important but small faction or an entirely new frame of theoretical-analytical abstraction, took the conflicts between individuals and caused strong and irreversible demarcations between sppousedly emancipatory visions and energies.. May be most of the time very stupid reasons, like money, girl, ego casued these we can't now... Then we (emancipatory peopel) had reproduced the power games of rulers -can be traced easily in the tone of writings of Marx, Engels, Luxembourg, Kautsky, Lenin, Proudhon, Bakunin,... the spirit of the time is gaining respect and authority for argument was full fledged attacks on personality.. plus whatever possible, as may be a result of structural possibilities limiting communication. It killed the true spirit of revolution/emancipation as well as prevented prefigurative ethical politics as such. In my opinion this made it possible for the rulers to survive and evolve into capitalist class agency for itself and gave them advantage. Since they saw that their grave digger were also like them.. since we did reproduce the capitalist form of power accumulation. It is not possible in the same way today, p2p mode of communication allows more open confrontations and conflict resolution processes, egalitarian and ethical - prefigurative relationships, as well as checks and balances. Still there are ways and tricks to gain network power and use it against the 'lower order' nodes? so on these weaknesses there is a work to do. Yet the structurally speaking it is not impossible to solve these problems today.
orsan
Dear friends, this thread is a very important discussion. Maybe the most important on the last time. And i hope, that the technical knowledge for the mailman is growing up in the P2P foundation. The realy important task, the "occupy the economy", the local self determining and organizing of the economy we search and never we find. We find discussion about strategies for transformation. But on what base? We find theoretics for "partner state", for cooperation with parasitic institutions, we find big fog for "knowledge worker" as a legitimation for the prasitic middle class. But the base? Our material life conditions? The nature as our basics for our existence? Michel wrote: "My preference goes to the creation of maximally autonomous communities that engage in counter-economics, and produce social charters to reconstitute politics around p2p and the commons, as the athenians and free citizens of the middle ages did. The endgame is phase transition, but not waiting until it occurs, but instituting it through hyper-connected micro-scale initiatives .. scaling through scope, until we are a social force that can play at meso and macro-scale." It was the first time, that i can read about "autonomous Comunas" in this discussion and in the P2P foundation. Maybe, i have overlooked it. Or is that a result of the desaster in Ecuador? The result of a companion with the prasitic state institutions in Ecuador? Societies as a free network of free and autonomous comunas. Based on: Free association of free members. But on what base we are free? Only if we are independent. But this is a breaking with the state theories. Never we can go this way with the state system, because the state is a instrument for centralisation, monopolizing and exclusion. Therefore he need the representation. Marco Giustini args with the Zapatistas as a exemple for aoutonomous comunsas. You should go to Chiapas and visit the zaptista communities. I was there. It is a big lie, a big theater. We need the dempcracy. P2P (horizontal and direct) is in principle a democratic structure and is totally incompatible with representation. Democracy is the counterpol to the representative structure and is never compatible to any state construction based on the romean state theory. Following of that, transformation of a society is the development of the local economy. And for that, the development of the local technical infrastructers to create the local economy. I will repeat: in the economy we never find money. This we only find in the constructed distribution system. And never we work for "value accumulation". We work for our needs only and not for any virtual speculation object. Of course, we and the result of our activities have values. But this for itself have no value and is not important. many greetings, willi now: Pitalito, Colombia
Willi, I like to force you to think or write in a constructive manner. Even if you like to criticize others you can do that constructvely as well, right? For instance, you have been talking about the pocket p2p distriubted transportation system, like post and cargo network. If you would like to give more insight, how does it work or will it be implemented? could you give, in case there is a developed version of the idea, link to a web site or document? Would love to read about it. best, Orsan On 29 July 2014 19:43, willi uebelherr <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear friends,
this thread is a very important discussion. Maybe the most important on the last time. And i hope, that the technical knowledge for the mailman is growing up in the P2P foundation.
The realy important task, the "occupy the economy", the local self determining and organizing of the economy we search and never we find. We find discussion about strategies for transformation. But on what base?
We find theoretics for "partner state", for cooperation with parasitic institutions, we find big fog for "knowledge worker" as a legitimation for the prasitic middle class. But the base? Our material life conditions? The nature as our basics for our existence?
Michel wrote: "My preference goes to the creation of maximally autonomous communities that engage in counter-economics, and produce social charters to reconstitute politics around p2p and the commons, as the athenians and free citizens of the middle ages did. The endgame is phase transition, but not waiting until it occurs, but instituting it through hyper-connected micro-scale initiatives .. scaling through scope, until we are a social force that can play at meso and macro-scale."
It was the first time, that i can read about "autonomous Comunas" in this discussion and in the P2P foundation. Maybe, i have overlooked it. Or is that a result of the desaster in Ecuador? The result of a companion with the prasitic state institutions in Ecuador?
Societies as a free network of free and autonomous comunas. Based on: Free association of free members. But on what base we are free? Only if we are independent. But this is a breaking with the state theories. Never we can go this way with the state system, because the state is a instrument for centralisation, monopolizing and exclusion. Therefore he need the representation.
Marco Giustini args with the Zapatistas as a exemple for aoutonomous comunsas. You should go to Chiapas and visit the zaptista communities. I was there. It is a big lie, a big theater.
We need the dempcracy. P2P (horizontal and direct) is in principle a democratic structure and is totally incompatible with representation. Democracy is the counterpol to the representative structure and is never compatible to any state construction based on the romean state theory.
Following of that, transformation of a society is the development of the local economy. And for that, the development of the local technical infrastructers to create the local economy.
I will repeat: in the economy we never find money. This we only find in the constructed distribution system.
And never we work for "value accumulation". We work for our needs only and not for any virtual speculation object. Of course, we and the result of our activities have values. But this for itself have no value and is not important.
many greetings, willi now: Pitalito, Colombia _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
Dear Oersan, i was a bit disappointed about your answer. But now, after many changed arguments, i understand more. For you, the speculative discussion about "strings" and "26. dimensions" is more important as the reality. For me, it is clear for members of the parasitic middle class. They have no substance. But for you? Maybe, this answer from me is the last on this list. Then it should be. Its not so important to act on a list with no relation to the reality. In your answer, i read, that you don't understand my proposal to NetMundial and www.1net.org. You args with post and cargo. I wrote about the common street as a parallel example to our networks for Packet transport. Maybe you don't understand the parallelism from common road and common data packet transport system. Or the parallelism from immaterial and material transport system for a society. Dear friends, Michel Bauwens wrote in one of his answers about "unity in diversity". I was very happy. Yes, because this is a very important step. I don't know what is the position to the concept of "partner state" from him and his friends. And i read about "counter-economy". I understand, what he mean. But never i would follow this argumentation, because we need our own economy and never we use a counter position in our design of our own economy. Robert Steele distributed some references from Stephan Schwarz: SchwartzReport: Bottom Up Energy Liberation http://www.phibetaiota.net/2014/07/schwartzreport-bottom-up-energy-liberatio... It is an important theme for us. The india village i don't know. But i know Wildpoldsried in South Germany, in the "Allgaeu", part of Bayern (Bavaria). I know this village nearly 40 years. So i know some processing there. We know, that the community independence in energy is very important. It is a part of our local economy. But this means, that we have to control the design, construction and building of the components for that. I know, that in Wildpoldsried the people discuss about. But the managers, all part of the "parasitic middle class", break this movement. Now, they use the most components from outside and in her center stay the money buisness. Not the independence in the using of the local energy base. Following of that, the dependcy is transformed to an another level. No more. But we see also in Wildpoldsried a very important process. It is the reactivity of the SSV (sports and swimming club). This groups are the most active parts of the local communities in south germany. And in this groups we find all type of profession. From agriculture to science of nature. And in Wildpoldsried we see the strong power of local community for her local economy. many greetings, willi San Agustin, Colombia Am 30/07/2014 um 10:53 a.m. schrieb Örsan Şenalp:
Willi, I like to force you to think or write in a constructive manner. Even if you like to criticize others you can do that constructvely as well, right?
For instance, you have been talking about the pocket p2p distriubted transportation system, like post and cargo network. If you would like to give more insight, how does it work or will it be implemented? could you give, in case there is a developed version of the idea, link to a web site or document? Would love to read about it.
best, Orsan
On 29 July 2014 19:43, willi uebelherr <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear friends,
this thread is a very important discussion. Maybe the most important on the last time. And i hope, that the technical knowledge for the mailman is growing up in the P2P foundation.
The realy important task, the "occupy the economy", the local self determining and organizing of the economy we search and never we find. We find discussion about strategies for transformation. But on what base?
We find theoretics for "partner state", for cooperation with parasitic institutions, we find big fog for "knowledge worker" as a legitimation for the prasitic middle class. But the base? Our material life conditions? The nature as our basics for our existence?
Michel wrote: "My preference goes to the creation of maximally autonomous communities that engage in counter-economics, and produce social charters to reconstitute politics around p2p and the commons, as the athenians and free citizens of the middle ages did. The endgame is phase transition, but not waiting until it occurs, but instituting it through hyper-connected micro-scale initiatives .. scaling through scope, until we are a social force that can play at meso and macro-scale."
It was the first time, that i can read about "autonomous Comunas" in this discussion and in the P2P foundation. Maybe, i have overlooked it. Or is that a result of the desaster in Ecuador? The result of a companion with the prasitic state institutions in Ecuador?
Societies as a free network of free and autonomous comunas. Based on: Free association of free members. But on what base we are free? Only if we are independent. But this is a breaking with the state theories. Never we can go this way with the state system, because the state is a instrument for centralisation, monopolizing and exclusion. Therefore he need the representation.
Marco Giustini args with the Zapatistas as a exemple for aoutonomous comunsas. You should go to Chiapas and visit the zaptista communities. I was there. It is a big lie, a big theater.
We need the dempcracy. P2P (horizontal and direct) is in principle a democratic structure and is totally incompatible with representation. Democracy is the counterpol to the representative structure and is never compatible to any state construction based on the romean state theory.
Following of that, transformation of a society is the development of the local economy. And for that, the development of the local technical infrastructers to create the local economy.
I will repeat: in the economy we never find money. This we only find in the constructed distribution system.
And never we work for "value accumulation". We work for our needs only and not for any virtual speculation object. Of course, we and the result of our activities have values. But this for itself have no value and is not important.
many greetings, willi now: Pitalito, Colombia _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour .
participants (3)
-
Michel Bauwens -
willi uebelherr -
Örsan Şenalp