Re: [P2P-F] [commoning] [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but also requires major political and social power to achieve it. The present land and water commons are declining rather than becoming stronger. On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote, "Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways.”
There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and all life. The life blood of capitalism is the living planet. Privatization of the land, water and all life must end. Land and water must be liberated from the social construct of property. Life should never be property.
One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be stewarded both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong of dispossession and create reparations, local stewardship could be led by indigenous peoples. Once the living planet is in a trust, corporations and governments should be charged rent for using the land, water, minerals and more. This would end externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is taken in order to restore the planet to health and steward the living land and waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way could provide the means for planetary restoration and a basic income for humans.
There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime against peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide should be prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters revoked. Seized assets could be used to remediate the harm and provide additional operational funds for the trusts. For example, BP’s assets could be used to create a trust for the Gulf of Mexico and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets could be used to combat climate change and provide funds for resettling refugees.
Ellen Austin, Tx.
On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions and transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism reproduces itself by paying wages that are enough for the reproduction of labour power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed. Land and nature as the main source of life are private property of capitalists. No one will ever be able to build a new collective mode of production without collectivising first land and other means of production and this requires expropriating capitalists: a social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist strategy you mean the Soviet case, it had some achievements but failed. But, that failure does not imply that the historical project of expropriating capitalist has failed. The industrial capitalism first emerged in Italian city states but was aborted there. Later, in more mature condition it took not only root in Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet experiment in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means prove that a new effort in our time for expropriating the expropriators will also fail. We need to judged the success and failure of the Soviet case in its historical conditions. Jakob
------------------------------ *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 17:25 *To:* Jakob Rigi *Cc:* Orsan Senalp; Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
Jakob,
capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage.
if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to do it.
The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which is how past transitions were successful
Michel
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Mitchel The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism by working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful fantasy- is not realisable. Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of production. And the state is in the first place the power and institutions that protect the private property in means of production. No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed into commons. Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument?
If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be transformed into commons? I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, what are your counter arguments? If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode of production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means of production . So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its coercive and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the benefit of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal commons.
Jakob Jakob
------------------------------ *From:* NetworkedLabour <[email protected]> on behalf of Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 10:47 *To:* Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens *Cc:* Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / capital-state-nation).
Orsan
On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
some of you may be interested in this short note: Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation
<http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation#mw-head> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation#p-search>
Discussion[edit <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation&action=edit§ion=1> ] Michel Bauwens: "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new integration. Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, overcoming capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, in democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and subject it to its rules.
I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy for a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform state functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead of being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the state from the population by increasing democratic and participatory decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical market organizations.
In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a very powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance it. Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and economic entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer production technologies create global open design communities that mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of value creation and value distribution."
-- 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
<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/ _______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list Commons-Institut e.V. Germany [email protected] https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning
-- 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/
All of these proposals are not intrinsically opposed to each other. They can all run, indeed should run alongside each other. These are all possible solutions. Why waste time arguing which one is better? Being creative means using all of them at different times, in different circumstances. History cannot prove to us that what failed before will not at some future date be successful. We may see trends now, but we cannot predict with certainty that these will become strong enough to replace the current capital system, or that elites will give up their power without violent resistance. Anna
On 17 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but also requires major political and social power to achieve it. The present land and water commons are declining rather than becoming stronger.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman <[email protected]> wrote: I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote, "Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways.”
There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and all life. The life blood of capitalism is the living planet. Privatization of the land, water and all life must end. Land and water must be liberated from the social construct of property. Life should never be property.
One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be stewarded both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong of dispossession and create reparations, local stewardship could be led by indigenous peoples. Once the living planet is in a trust, corporations and governments should be charged rent for using the land, water, minerals and more. This would end externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is taken in order to restore the planet to health and steward the living land and waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way could provide the means for planetary restoration and a basic income for humans.
There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime against peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide should be prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters revoked. Seized assets could be used to remediate the harm and provide additional operational funds for the trusts. For example, BP’s assets could be used to create a trust for the Gulf of Mexico and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets could be used to combat climate change and provide funds for resettling refugees.
Ellen Austin, Tx.
On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions and transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism reproduces itself by paying wages that are enough for the reproduction of labour power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed. Land and nature as the main source of life are private property of capitalists. No one will ever be able to build a new collective mode of production without collectivising first land and other means of production and this requires expropriating capitalists: a social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist strategy you mean the Soviet case, it had some achievements but failed. But, that failure does not imply that the historical project of expropriating capitalist has failed. The industrial capitalism first emerged in Italian city states but was aborted there. Later, in more mature condition it took not only root in Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet experiment in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means prove that a new effort in our time for expropriating the expropriators will also fail. We need to judged the success and failure of the Soviet case in its historical conditions. Jakob
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> Sent: 15 June 2016 17:25 To: Jakob Rigi Cc: Orsan Senalp; Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
Jakob,
capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage.
if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to do it.
The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which is how past transitions were successful
Michel
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote: Mitchel The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism by working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful fantasy- is not realisable. Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of production. And the state is in the first place the power and institutions that protect the private property in means of production. No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed into commons. Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument?
If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be transformed into commons? I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, what are your counter arguments? If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode of production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means of production . So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its coercive and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the benefit of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal commons.
Jakob Jakob
From: NetworkedLabour <[email protected]> on behalf of Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> Sent: 15 June 2016 10:47 To: Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens Cc: Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / capital-state-nation).
Orsan
On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
some of you may be interested in this short note:
Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation
Discussion[edit] Michel Bauwens: "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new integration. Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, overcoming capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, in democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and subject it to its rules.
I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy for a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform state functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead of being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the state from the population by increasing democratic and participatory decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical market organizations.
In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a very powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance it. Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and economic entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer production technologies create global open design communities that mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of value creation and value distribution."
-- 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
-- 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/ _______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list Commons-Institut e.V. Germany [email protected] https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning
-- 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
except you cannot ever institute a basic unconditional income outside of the collective institution that is the state .. so there is a choice to be made, where do you put your energy ... achieving the basic income would require significant social mobilization and energy. continuing to work on the commons economy on the other hand, is something we can, and even must do, in the context of increasing market and state failure, Michel On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
All of these proposals are not intrinsically opposed to each other. They can all run, indeed should run alongside each other. These are all possible solutions. Why waste time arguing which one is better? Being creative means using all of them at different times, in different circumstances. History cannot prove to us that what failed before will not at some future date be successful. We may see trends now, but we cannot predict with certainty that these will become strong enough to replace the current capital system, or that elites will give up their power without violent resistance.
Anna
On 17 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but also requires major political and social power to achieve it. The present land and water commons are declining rather than becoming stronger.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote, "Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways.”
There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and all life. The life blood of capitalism is the living planet. Privatization of the land, water and all life must end. Land and water must be liberated from the social construct of property. Life should never be property.
One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be stewarded both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong of dispossession and create reparations, local stewardship could be led by indigenous peoples. Once the living planet is in a trust, corporations and governments should be charged rent for using the land, water, minerals and more. This would end externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is taken in order to restore the planet to health and steward the living land and waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way could provide the means for planetary restoration and a basic income for humans.
There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime against peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide should be prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters revoked. Seized assets could be used to remediate the harm and provide additional operational funds for the trusts. For example, BP’s assets could be used to create a trust for the Gulf of Mexico and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets could be used to combat climate change and provide funds for resettling refugees.
Ellen Austin, Tx.
On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions and transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism reproduces itself by paying wages that are enough for the reproduction of labour power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed. Land and nature as the main source of life are private property of capitalists. No one will ever be able to build a new collective mode of production without collectivising first land and other means of production and this requires expropriating capitalists: a social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist strategy you mean the Soviet case, it had some achievements but failed. But, that failure does not imply that the historical project of expropriating capitalist has failed. The industrial capitalism first emerged in Italian city states but was aborted there. Later, in more mature condition it took not only root in Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet experiment in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means prove that a new effort in our time for expropriating the expropriators will also fail. We need to judged the success and failure of the Soviet case in its historical conditions. Jakob
------------------------------ *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 17:25 *To:* Jakob Rigi *Cc:* Orsan Senalp; Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
Jakob,
capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage.
if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to do it.
The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which is how past transitions were successful
Michel
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Mitchel The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism by working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful fantasy- is not realisable. Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of production. And the state is in the first place the power and institutions that protect the private property in means of production. No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed into commons. Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument?
If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be transformed into commons? I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, what are your counter arguments? If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode of production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means of production . So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its coercive and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the benefit of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal commons.
Jakob Jakob
------------------------------ *From:* NetworkedLabour <[email protected]> on behalf of Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 10:47 *To:* Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens *Cc:* Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / capital-state-nation).
Orsan
On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
some of you may be interested in this short note: Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation
<http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation#mw-head> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation#p-search>
Discussion[edit <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation&action=edit§ion=1> ] Michel Bauwens: "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new integration. Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, overcoming capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, in democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and subject it to its rules.
I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy for a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform state functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead of being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the state from the population by increasing democratic and participatory decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical market organizations.
In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a very powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance it. Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and economic entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer production technologies create global open design communities that mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of value creation and value distribution."
-- 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
<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/ _______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list Commons-Institut e.V. Germany [email protected] https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning
-- 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/
_______________________________________________ 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 <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/
Yes Michel, there is a choice to be made, each of us has to decide where to put our energy. That still does not imply that there can only be one theoretical framework, and thus constant argument about which is 'top dog'. When you start with a concept of a limited energy supply (the scarcity culture with which we are all familiar) then it must seem that you cannot let anyone else grab that energy. In actual fact it doesn't work that way. When we can combine with others who appear to be opposed to what we are proposing, energy abounds. I cannot prove this to you scientifically, it seems paradoxical but it is my experience. That is why collaboration is more sustainable than competition. This is prefiguring the new culture of abundance.
Jacob too says, 'first we must convince people in order to create a collective will for this purpose that leads to new practices.'
He comes from the same mindset. It is that mindset which needs to change to prefigure the new sustainable culture to which we aspire. Anna On 17 Jun 2016, at 23:08, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
except you cannot ever institute a basic unconditional income outside of the collective institution that is the state .. so there is a choice to be made, where do you put your energy ... achieving the basic income would require significant social mobilization and energy.
continuing to work on the commons economy on the other hand, is something we can, and even must do, in the context of increasing market and state failure,
Michel
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote: All of these proposals are not intrinsically opposed to each other. They can all run, indeed should run alongside each other. These are all possible solutions. Why waste time arguing which one is better? Being creative means using all of them at different times, in different circumstances. History cannot prove to us that what failed before will not at some future date be successful. We may see trends now, but we cannot predict with certainty that these will become strong enough to replace the current capital system, or that elites will give up their power without violent resistance.
Anna
On 17 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but also requires major political and social power to achieve it. The present land and water commons are declining rather than becoming stronger.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman <[email protected]> wrote: I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote, "Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways.”
There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and all life. The life blood of capitalism is the living planet. Privatization of the land, water and all life must end. Land and water must be liberated from the social construct of property. Life should never be property.
One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be stewarded both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong of dispossession and create reparations, local stewardship could be led by indigenous peoples. Once the living planet is in a trust, corporations and governments should be charged rent for using the land, water, minerals and more. This would end externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is taken in order to restore the planet to health and steward the living land and waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way could provide the means for planetary restoration and a basic income for humans.
There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime against peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide should be prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters revoked. Seized assets could be used to remediate the harm and provide additional operational funds for the trusts. For example, BP’s assets could be used to create a trust for the Gulf of Mexico and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets could be used to combat climate change and provide funds for resettling refugees.
Ellen Austin, Tx.
On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions and transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism reproduces itself by paying wages that are enough for the reproduction of labour power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed. Land and nature as the main source of life are private property of capitalists. No one will ever be able to build a new collective mode of production without collectivising first land and other means of production and this requires expropriating capitalists: a social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist strategy you mean the Soviet case, it had some achievements but failed. But, that failure does not imply that the historical project of expropriating capitalist has failed. The industrial capitalism first emerged in Italian city states but was aborted there. Later, in more mature condition it took not only root in Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet experiment in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means prove that a new effort in our time for expropriating the expropriators will also fail. We need to judged the success and failure of the Soviet case in its historical conditions. Jakob
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> Sent: 15 June 2016 17:25 To: Jakob Rigi Cc: Orsan Senalp; Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
Jakob,
capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage.
if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to do it.
The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which is how past transitions were successful
Michel
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote: Mitchel The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism by working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful fantasy- is not realisable. Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of production. And the state is in the first place the power and institutions that protect the private property in means of production. No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed into commons. Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument?
If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be transformed into commons? I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, what are your counter arguments? If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode of production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means of production . So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its coercive and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the benefit of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal commons.
Jakob Jakob
From: NetworkedLabour <[email protected]> on behalf of Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> Sent: 15 June 2016 10:47 To: Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens Cc: Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / capital-state-nation).
Orsan
> On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote: > > some of you may be interested in this short note: > > Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation > > Discussion[edit] > Michel Bauwens: > "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation > Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new integration. > Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, overcoming capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, in democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and subject it to its rules. > > I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy for a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform state functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead of being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the state from the population by increasing democratic and participatory decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical market organizations. > > In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a very powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance it. Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and economic entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer production technologies create global open design communities that mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. > In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of value creation and value distribution." > > -- > 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
-- 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/ _______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list Commons-Institut e.V. Germany [email protected] https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning
-- 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
-- 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/
dear Anna, On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes Michel, there is a choice to be made, each of us has to decide where to put our energy. That still does not imply that there can only be one theoretical framework, and thus constant argument about which is 'top dog'.
not sure who is implying that there is only one theoretical approach ? Certainly not me. But of course, conscious or not, we are all guided by 'theories' of how the world works, and it is better to be conscious of them. The alternative to theory is not no theory, but bad theory In any case, p2p theory is an integrative and pluralistic theory that is just there for anyone to freely engage with, or not: and I have framed my work that even if I'm totally wrong, the commons we are producing is still useful to anyone who disasrees . Theory is about seeking truth, i.e. about developing for one's own guidance in life, a framework that is respectful of facts, coherent to the maximum degree, and integrative, i.e. seeking to encompass the maximal amount of truth one can; and to constantly adapt it if necessary The map can of course never replace or represent the reality, it is a mere guide and it is very healthy to regularly bracket theoretical understandings to experience reality without prejudice I think you misunderstand the dialogues between various people here, as attempts to be 'top dog'; I for one know that most people here, like Orsan, Jakob and others, have the truth in their minds in their conversations ,, they are seeking to change the world for the better, as good as they can, and so do I; that not all of us agree is entirely normal, but we/they are all trying to make a positive difference
When you start with a concept of a limited energy supply (the scarcity culture with which we are all familiar) then it must seem that you cannot let anyone else grab that energy. In actual fact it doesn't work that way. When we can combine with others who appear to be opposed to what we are proposing, energy abounds. I cannot prove this to you scientifically, it seems paradoxical but it is my experience.
My view is there are two mistakes to be made, that the world is 'scarce', or that the world is 'abundant'; in fact, both are polarities present in reality; as we say in the p2p foundation, this is not just an objective fact, but it depends on our views and actions: 'together we know everything and together we have everything'; both human and natural energy are limited in their conversion capacity, they are not infinite, and the reason we are destroying our planet is precisel this belief that we can just deplete nature and people of their energy for example, the time spent in entertaining a destructive troll is time that is unavailable for constructive discussions there are real choices that cannot be drowned in a general and new agey certainty of abundance, but that is just my view what we are discussing here matters, and guides us in our choices in life, it is by confronting our different viewpoints that we collectively learn to shed more light and understanding Michel
That is why collaboration is more sustainable than competition. This is prefiguring the new culture of abundance.
Jacob too says, 'first we must convince people in order to create a collective will for this purpose that leads to new practices.'
He comes from the same mindset. It is that mindset which needs to change to prefigure the new sustainable culture to which we aspire.
Anna
On 17 Jun 2016, at 23:08, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
except you cannot ever institute a basic unconditional income outside of the collective institution that is the state .. so there is a choice to be made, where do you put your energy ... achieving the basic income would require significant social mobilization and energy.
continuing to work on the commons economy on the other hand, is something we can, and even must do, in the context of increasing market and state failure,
Michel
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
All of these proposals are not intrinsically opposed to each other. They can all run, indeed should run alongside each other. These are all possible solutions. Why waste time arguing which one is better? Being creative means using all of them at different times, in different circumstances. History cannot prove to us that what failed before will not at some future date be successful. We may see trends now, but we cannot predict with certainty that these will become strong enough to replace the current capital system, or that elites will give up their power without violent resistance.
Anna
On 17 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but also requires major political and social power to achieve it. The present land and water commons are declining rather than becoming stronger.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote, "Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways.”
There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and all life. The life blood of capitalism is the living planet. Privatization of the land, water and all life must end. Land and water must be liberated from the social construct of property. Life should never be property.
One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be stewarded both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong of dispossession and create reparations, local stewardship could be led by indigenous peoples. Once the living planet is in a trust, corporations and governments should be charged rent for using the land, water, minerals and more. This would end externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is taken in order to restore the planet to health and steward the living land and waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way could provide the means for planetary restoration and a basic income for humans.
There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime against peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide should be prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters revoked. Seized assets could be used to remediate the harm and provide additional operational funds for the trusts. For example, BP’s assets could be used to create a trust for the Gulf of Mexico and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets could be used to combat climate change and provide funds for resettling refugees.
Ellen Austin, Tx.
On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions and transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism reproduces itself by paying wages that are enough for the reproduction of labour power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed. Land and nature as the main source of life are private property of capitalists. No one will ever be able to build a new collective mode of production without collectivising first land and other means of production and this requires expropriating capitalists: a social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist strategy you mean the Soviet case, it had some achievements but failed. But, that failure does not imply that the historical project of expropriating capitalist has failed. The industrial capitalism first emerged in Italian city states but was aborted there. Later, in more mature condition it took not only root in Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet experiment in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means prove that a new effort in our time for expropriating the expropriators will also fail. We need to judged the success and failure of the Soviet case in its historical conditions. Jakob
------------------------------ *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 17:25 *To:* Jakob Rigi *Cc:* Orsan Senalp; Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
Jakob,
capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage.
if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to do it.
The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which is how past transitions were successful
Michel
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Mitchel The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism by working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful fantasy- is not realisable. Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of production. And the state is in the first place the power and institutions that protect the private property in means of production. No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed into commons. Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument?
If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be transformed into commons? I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, what are your counter arguments? If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode of production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means of production . So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its coercive and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the benefit of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal commons.
Jakob Jakob
------------------------------ *From:* NetworkedLabour <[email protected]> on behalf of Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 10:47 *To:* Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens *Cc:* Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / capital-state-nation).
Orsan
On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
some of you may be interested in this short note: Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation
<http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation#mw-head> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation#p-search>
Discussion[edit <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation&action=edit§ion=1> ] Michel Bauwens: "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new integration. Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, overcoming capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, in democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and subject it to its rules.
I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy for a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform state functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead of being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the state from the population by increasing democratic and participatory decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical market organizations.
In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a very powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance it. Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and economic entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer production technologies create global open design communities that mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of value creation and value distribution."
-- 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
<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/ _______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list Commons-Institut e.V. Germany [email protected] https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning
-- 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
<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/
-- 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/
I think there will likely be analogues of the Basic Income even in a non-state framework, provided by post-capitalist equivalents of medieval guilds, commons rights in open field villages, and the like. As states and corporations become fiscally exhausted and retreat from the social field, and both state- and employer-based safety nets erode, people will fill the void by creating a wide variety of primary social units on a multi-family scale for pooling income, costs and risks -- much like the self-sufficient units that emerged during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Micro-villages, extended family compounds, neighborhood associations and co-housing arrangements, urban communes.... A growing share of people will be born into such primary social units as the new norm, with an automatic right to an aliquot share of arable land and/or access to machines in the community shop, and some minimum (probably quite modest by our standards) required number of hours producing for common consumption in return for guaranteed sustenance to children, the aged and those unable to work. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
except you cannot ever institute a basic unconditional income outside of the collective institution that is the state .. so there is a choice to be made, where do you put your energy ... achieving the basic income would require significant social mobilization and energy.
continuing to work on the commons economy on the other hand, is something we can, and even must do, in the context of increasing market and state failure,
Michel
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
All of these proposals are not intrinsically opposed to each other. They can all run, indeed should run alongside each other. These are all possible solutions. Why waste time arguing which one is better? Being creative means using all of them at different times, in different circumstances. History cannot prove to us that what failed before will not at some future date be successful. We may see trends now, but we cannot predict with certainty that these will become strong enough to replace the current capital system, or that elites will give up their power without violent resistance.
Anna
On 17 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but also requires major political and social power to achieve it. The present land and water commons are declining rather than becoming stronger.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote, "Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways.”
There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and all life. The life blood of capitalism is the living planet. Privatization of the land, water and all life must end. Land and water must be liberated from the social construct of property. Life should never be property.
One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be stewarded both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong of dispossession and create reparations, local stewardship could be led by indigenous peoples. Once the living planet is in a trust, corporations and governments should be charged rent for using the land, water, minerals and more. This would end externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is taken in order to restore the planet to health and steward the living land and waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way could provide the means for planetary restoration and a basic income for humans.
There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime against peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide should be prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters revoked. Seized assets could be used to remediate the harm and provide additional operational funds for the trusts. For example, BP’s assets could be used to create a trust for the Gulf of Mexico and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets could be used to combat climate change and provide funds for resettling refugees.
Ellen Austin, Tx.
On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions and transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism reproduces itself by paying wages that are enough for the reproduction of labour power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed. Land and nature as the main source of life are private property of capitalists. No one will ever be able to build a new collective mode of production without collectivising first land and other means of production and this requires expropriating capitalists: a social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist strategy you mean the Soviet case, it had some achievements but failed. But, that failure does not imply that the historical project of expropriating capitalist has failed. The industrial capitalism first emerged in Italian city states but was aborted there. Later, in more mature condition it took not only root in Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet experiment in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means prove that a new effort in our time for expropriating the expropriators will also fail. We need to judged the success and failure of the Soviet case in its historical conditions. Jakob
________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> Sent: 15 June 2016 17:25 To: Jakob Rigi Cc: Orsan Senalp; Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
Jakob,
capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage.
if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to do it.
The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which is how past transitions were successful
Michel
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Mitchel The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism by working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful fantasy- is not realisable. Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of production. And the state is in the first place the power and institutions that protect the private property in means of production. No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed into commons. Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument?
If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be transformed into commons? I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, what are your counter arguments? If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode of production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means of production . So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its coercive and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the benefit of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal commons.
Jakob Jakob
________________________________ From: NetworkedLabour <[email protected]> on behalf of Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> Sent: 15 June 2016 10:47 To: Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens Cc: Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / capital-state-nation).
Orsan
On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
some of you may be interested in this short note:
Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation
Discussion[edit]
Michel Bauwens: "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new integration. Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, overcoming capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, in democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and subject it to its rules.
I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy for a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform state functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead of being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the state from the population by increasing democratic and participatory decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical market organizations.
In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a very powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance it. Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and economic entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer production technologies create global open design communities that mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of value creation and value distribution."
-- 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
-- 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/ _______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list Commons-Institut e.V. Germany [email protected] https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning
-- 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
-- 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
-- Kevin Carson Senior Fellow, Karl Hess Scholar in Social Theory Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org "You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com
Dear Kevin, the times when guilds and commons associations in the countryside provided these solidarity mechanisms, were highly unequal periods; and a patchwork of independent guilds would quickly lead to highly unequal outcomes (the monopoly game) ; this is why we need democratic polities to insure overall equality; as far as I understand the evolution of the guilds, they started differentiatiing, merchant guilds became the strongest, and families detached themselves from the guilds to become early capitalists I think the difference between us is whether a society exists separately as a field seperately from private agreements between autonomous players : I think it does and so we need a democratic polity to address common 'territorial' and other issues. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Kevin Carson < [email protected]> wrote:
I think there will likely be analogues of the Basic Income even in a non-state framework, provided by post-capitalist equivalents of medieval guilds, commons rights in open field villages, and the like. As states and corporations become fiscally exhausted and retreat from the social field, and both state- and employer-based safety nets erode, people will fill the void by creating a wide variety of primary social units on a multi-family scale for pooling income, costs and risks -- much like the self-sufficient units that emerged during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Micro-villages, extended family compounds, neighborhood associations and co-housing arrangements, urban communes.... A growing share of people will be born into such primary social units as the new norm, with an automatic right to an aliquot share of arable land and/or access to machines in the community shop, and some minimum (probably quite modest by our standards) required number of hours producing for common consumption in return for guaranteed sustenance to children, the aged and those unable to work.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
except you cannot ever institute a basic unconditional income outside of the collective institution that is the state .. so there is a choice to be made, where do you put your energy ... achieving the basic income would require significant social mobilization and energy.
continuing to work on the commons economy on the other hand, is something we can, and even must do, in the context of increasing market and state failure,
Michel
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
All of these proposals are not intrinsically opposed to each other. They can all run, indeed should run alongside each other. These are all
possible
solutions. Why waste time arguing which one is better? Being creative means using all of them at different times, in different circumstances. History cannot prove to us that what failed before will not at some future date be successful. We may see trends now, but we cannot predict with certainty that these will become strong enough to replace the current capital system, or that elites will give up their power without violent resistance.
Anna
On 17 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but also requires major political and social power to achieve it. The present land and water commons are declining rather than becoming stronger.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman < [email protected]> wrote:
I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote, "Overcoming
the
capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways.”
There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and all life. The life blood of capitalism is the living planet. Privatization of the land, water and all life must end. Land and water must be liberated from the social construct of property. Life should never be property.
One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be stewarded both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong of dispossession and create reparations, local stewardship could be led by indigenous peoples. Once the living planet is in a trust, corporations and governments should be charged rent for using the land, water, minerals and more. This would end externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is taken in order to restore the planet to health and steward the living land and waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way could provide the means for planetary restoration and a basic income for humans.
There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime against peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide should be prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters revoked. Seized assets could be used to remediate the harm and provide additional operational funds for the trusts. For example, BP’s assets could be used to create a trust for the Gulf of Mexico and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets could be used to combat climate change and provide funds for resettling refugees.
Ellen Austin, Tx.
On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions and transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism reproduces itself by paying wages that are enough for the reproduction of labour power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed. Land and nature as the main source of life are private property of capitalists. No one will ever be able to build a new collective mode of production without collectivising first land and other means of production and this requires expropriating capitalists: a social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist strategy you mean the Soviet case, it had some achievements but failed. But, that failure does not imply that the historical project of expropriating capitalist has failed. The industrial capitalism first emerged in Italian city states but was aborted there. Later, in more mature condition it took not only root in Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet experiment in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means prove that a new effort in our time for expropriating the expropriators will also fail. We need to judged the success and failure of the Soviet case in its historical conditions. Jakob
________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> Sent: 15 June 2016 17:25 To: Jakob Rigi Cc: Orsan Senalp; Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
Jakob,
capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage.
if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to do it.
The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which is how past transitions were successful
Michel
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Mitchel The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge
capitalism
by working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful fantasy- is not realisable. Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of production. And the state is in the first place the power and institutions that protect the private property in means of production. No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed into commons. Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument?
If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be transformed into commons? I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, what are your counter arguments? If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode of production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means of production . So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its coercive and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the benefit of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal commons.
Jakob Jakob
________________________________ From: NetworkedLabour <[email protected]> on behalf of Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> Sent: 15 June 2016 10:47 To: Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens Cc: Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / capital-state-nation).
Orsan
On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
some of you may be interested in this short note:
Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation
Discussion[edit]
Michel Bauwens: "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new integration. Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, overcoming capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, in democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and subject it to its rules.
I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy for a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform state functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead of being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the state from the population by increasing democratic and participatory decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical market organizations.
In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a very powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance it. Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and economic entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer production technologies create global open design communities that mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of value creation and value distribution."
-- 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
-- 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/ _______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list Commons-Institut e.V. Germany [email protected] https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning
-- 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
-- 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
-- Kevin Carson Senior Fellow, Karl Hess Scholar in Social Theory Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
"You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous
Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ 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 <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/
In that case though they evolved in the context of a larger society built around inequality, where the structural forces favored inequality, and were eventually distorted by that hegemonic structure. As also with your above comment on capital coopting open-source, my gut feeling is that just is the opposite in our time. The cooptation of p2p and micro-manufacturing by finance and by the corporate form is an untenable intermediate stage, in an era where the long-term structural trends are against large-scale institutions of capital and state. On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Kevin,
the times when guilds and commons associations in the countryside provided these solidarity mechanisms, were highly unequal periods; and a patchwork of independent guilds would quickly lead to highly unequal outcomes (the monopoly game) ; this is why we need democratic polities to insure overall equality;
as far as I understand the evolution of the guilds, they started differentiatiing, merchant guilds became the strongest, and families detached themselves from the guilds to become early capitalists
I think the difference between us is whether a society exists separately as a field seperately from private agreements between autonomous players : I think it does and so we need a democratic polity to address common 'territorial' and other issues.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Kevin Carson <[email protected]> wrote:
I think there will likely be analogues of the Basic Income even in a non-state framework, provided by post-capitalist equivalents of medieval guilds, commons rights in open field villages, and the like. As states and corporations become fiscally exhausted and retreat from the social field, and both state- and employer-based safety nets erode, people will fill the void by creating a wide variety of primary social units on a multi-family scale for pooling income, costs and risks -- much like the self-sufficient units that emerged during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Micro-villages, extended family compounds, neighborhood associations and co-housing arrangements, urban communes.... A growing share of people will be born into such primary social units as the new norm, with an automatic right to an aliquot share of arable land and/or access to machines in the community shop, and some minimum (probably quite modest by our standards) required number of hours producing for common consumption in return for guaranteed sustenance to children, the aged and those unable to work.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
except you cannot ever institute a basic unconditional income outside of the collective institution that is the state .. so there is a choice to be made, where do you put your energy ... achieving the basic income would require significant social mobilization and energy.
continuing to work on the commons economy on the other hand, is something we can, and even must do, in the context of increasing market and state failure,
Michel
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
All of these proposals are not intrinsically opposed to each other. They can all run, indeed should run alongside each other. These are all possible solutions. Why waste time arguing which one is better? Being creative means using all of them at different times, in different circumstances. History cannot prove to us that what failed before will not at some future date be successful. We may see trends now, but we cannot predict with certainty that these will become strong enough to replace the current capital system, or that elites will give up their power without violent resistance.
Anna
On 17 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but also requires major political and social power to achieve it. The present land and water commons are declining rather than becoming stronger.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote, "Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways.”
There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and all life. The life blood of capitalism is the living planet. Privatization of the land, water and all life must end. Land and water must be liberated from the social construct of property. Life should never be property.
One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be stewarded both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong of dispossession and create reparations, local stewardship could be led by indigenous peoples. Once the living planet is in a trust, corporations and governments should be charged rent for using the land, water, minerals and more. This would end externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is taken in order to restore the planet to health and steward the living land and waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way could provide the means for planetary restoration and a basic income for humans.
There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime against peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide should be prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters revoked. Seized assets could be used to remediate the harm and provide additional operational funds for the trusts. For example, BP’s assets could be used to create a trust for the Gulf of Mexico and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets could be used to combat climate change and provide funds for resettling refugees.
Ellen Austin, Tx.
On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Michel,
You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions and transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism reproduces itself by paying wages that are enough for the reproduction of labour power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed. Land and nature as the main source of life are private property of capitalists. No one will ever be able to build a new collective mode of production without collectivising first land and other means of production and this requires expropriating capitalists: a social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist strategy you mean the Soviet case, it had some achievements but failed. But, that failure does not imply that the historical project of expropriating capitalist has failed. The industrial capitalism first emerged in Italian city states but was aborted there. Later, in more mature condition it took not only root in Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet experiment in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means prove that a new effort in our time for expropriating the expropriators will also fail. We need to judged the success and failure of the Soviet case in its historical conditions. Jakob
________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> Sent: 15 June 2016 17:25 To: Jakob Rigi Cc: Orsan Senalp; Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
Jakob,
capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and workers as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage.
if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to 'expropriate', the building of counter-hegemonic power is essential to get there ... merely mobilizing counter-power within the capitalist system, i.e. dependent labor, has not worked for 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The diverse forms of property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously, powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic control of resources, but then you still have to deal with the impotence of nations to do this, and they most likely will smash you, as they are doing with greece and venezuela and elsewhere. This brings to the fore the other aspect of our strategy, which is to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. Just screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to do it.
The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the previous transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy of taking power and change everything once we have that power, has been a dismal failure. So I think that continuing in that vein after 200 years of failure, that is the wishful thinking. It hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't working for this transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is based on the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which is how past transitions were successful
Michel
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <[email protected]> wrote:
Mitchel The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge capitalism by working for themselves and make the state their partner is a wishful fantasy- is not realisable. Capitalism is in the first place the private ownership in means of production. And the state is in the first place the power and institutions that protect the private property in means of production. No cooperative production can become the dominant mode of production unless land and other strategic means of productions have been transformed into commons. Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter argument?
If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be transformed into commons? I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you disagree, what are your counter arguments? If you agree, then, making the production of commons the dominant mode of production requires confronting the sate not becoming its partner. Capitalist did not needed always to expropriate the feudal landowners since the latter started to lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists expropriated small owners the means of production-the so called primitive accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate the slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But, capitalist having expropriated the majority of the population and thereby have monopolised the strategic means of production. Transferring these means of production to the majority, meaning making them universal commons of humanity requires expropriating capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. It will tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed blood. Our monopoly right our violence is here to protect capitalist property in means of production . So the commoners mus confront such a state and smash at least its coercive and violent institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the benefit of the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal commons.
Jakob Jakob
________________________________ From: NetworkedLabour <[email protected]> on behalf of Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> Sent: 15 June 2016 10:47 To: Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens Cc: Commoning; [email protected]; p2p-foundation Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have put together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a direct-action, political confrontation axe which needs to be built based on what can be imagined as 'peer to peer social network unionism'. As supportive element in terms of organizing power, and broader alliance building, hence collectivization of working alternatives and to defend them against ruling class violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic transnational trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material capabilities-ideas / capital-state-nation).
Orsan
On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
some of you may be interested in this short note:
Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation
Discussion[edit]
Michel Bauwens: "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is based on a trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an integration of three modes of exchange. Capital represents a particular market form based on the endless accumulation of capital, the state is the entity that keeps the system together through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls this function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and reciprocity. A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome all three in a new integration. Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways. First of all, the capitalist market requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, overcoming capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners work for themselves, in democratic associations and create autonomous livelihoods around our commons, protected from value capture through membranes such as reciprocity-based licenses. Measures like the basic income also substantially remove the compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor power, and would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists today, and create our own funding and resource allocation mechanisms. The second way is to withdraw from capitalism and capital accumulation is by removing our cooperation as consumers. Without workers as producers and workers as consumers, there can be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the invention and creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from the creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their consumption in pooled market forms such as community-supported agriculture and the like. To the degree that we systematically organize new provisioning and consumption systems, outside of the sphere of capital, we undermine the reproduction of capital and capital accumulation. In addition, we create ‘transvestment’ vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined by the new commons and market forms that we develop through peer production, this creates a flow of value from the system of capital to the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis of capital accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a stream of value which seeks a place in the commons economy. Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, in the form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and subject it to its rules.
I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our strategy for a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We strive to transform state functions so that they actually empower and enable the autonomy of the citizens as individuals and groups, to create common resources, instead of being ‘consumers’ of state services. We abolish the separation of the state from the population by increasing democratic and participatory decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons, giving every citizen and resident the right to work in the commonified public services. But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely from the state because we need common good institutions for everyone in a given territory, which creates equal capacities for every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical market organizations.
In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation trinity is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because it has created a very powerful transnational financial class, which is able to move resources globally and discipline the state and the nations that dare rebalance it. Our answer is to create trans-local and trans-national civic and economic entities that can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer production technologies create global open design communities that mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can create global and ethical market organizations around them. Even as we produce locally, we organize trans-local productive communities. These trans-local productive communities are no longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms of governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way, they also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we explained in our strategy regarding the global capitalist market, these forces can operate against the accumulation of capital at the global level, and create global counter-hegemonic power. In all likelihood, this will create global governance mechanisms and institutions that are no longer inter-national, but trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. In conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation trinity, which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global domination of private capital, by creating a new integrative trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- Partner State, that is not confined to the nation-state level, but can operate trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional trinity. Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan subjectivities but also allegiance to local and trans-national commons-oriented communities of value creation and value distribution."
-- 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
-- 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/ _______________________________________________ Commoning mailing list Commons-Institut e.V. Germany [email protected] https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning
-- 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
-- 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
-- Kevin Carson Senior Fellow, Karl Hess Scholar in Social Theory Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
"You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous
Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ 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/
-- Kevin Carson Senior Fellow, Karl Hess Scholar in Social Theory Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org "You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com
participants (3)
-
Anna Harris -
Kevin Carson -
Michel Bauwens