Re: [P2P-F] important debate: fighting cuts in an age of powerdown
please note someone inserted a wrong address for our list, i.e. [email protected] instead of: [email protected] would be nice if you could resend your recent emails to the right address, so the others can share in your insights and the discussion, Michel On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Walton Pantland <[email protected]> wrote:
Good points.
This argument has its manifestation in the UK in the form of David Cameron's Big Society. Superficially it's a good idea: let's do away with heavy handed state bureaucracy, and a faceless centralised system that runs things with no regard for local needs, and replace it with a system where active citizens run things at local levels. This sounds good, and generally I am in favour of subsidiarity.
However, after Cameron came into power, the real meaning of the Big Society became apparent: the Government would massively cut funding to public libraries, community centres and a number of other institutions. If local people wanted to keep them open, they could volunteer to run them, for no remuneration. So the plan was to replace paid public servants with volunteers, and in some cases compel the unemployed to 'volunteer' to keep services open.
In the end, a Big Society needs infrastructure - a Commons that everyone can access.
Cheers
Walton
On 18 March 2011 10:40, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
thanks Jean!
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:30 PM, jean lievens <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi Michel,
Sorry, cannot use Outlook because I am in Sweden...
In my opinion, there is no real contradiction there, only two sides of the same coin. I think that capitalism is faced with a whole range of contradictions that cannot be solved if the present system is maintained. I’ve been reading a lot about ‘happiness’, the paradox of choice, behavioral economics etc. lately and what strikes me is that all these studies can be used in two ways: it can be used in defense of the system (rich people are not necessarily more happy than poor people, envy makes you unhappy, religious people are often more happy than non-believers, etc.), the system is rational but people are not… But on the other hand, I think these studies contain far more arguments in favour of a more just, egalitarian and far less materialistic society. I think ordinary people will gladly accept ‘cuts’ if they do not need to worry about their basic needs anymore (and that means extending the public sector, not cutting it), have more free time and far more control over their own lives. This means a fight for real political and economic democracy. Only in creating a system that is not based on the profit motive, but on the fulfillment of human needs, can the present contradictions be solved. But this is off course a general idea. The question is: how to get there? I think the role of the state and government are crucial here. We will not be able to jump from ‘here’ to ‘there’ in one leap as for example Chomsky seems to suggest. In order to get there, working people need to take over the control of the state, but at the same time turn the state institutions around and run them in a democratic manner. I think that self-organizing coordination groups over the internet will play a major role in this democratization process, but we need to develop this further. And in the meanwhile, we need to stand firm in defending working people and civil servants against unfair cuts. The elite will use any argument to let people swallow their austerity, including 'limits of growth' (as in the seventies) and the protection of the environment.
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-- Walton Pantland
2/1 48 Waverley Street Shawlands Glasgow G41 2DZ Scotland UK
Home: +44 (0)141 649 0645 Work Mobile: +44 (0)785 499 6113 Private Mobile: +44(0)7920100826 Skype: Leischa Twitter: @Leischa Web: http://redstarcoven.com/ http://cyberunions.org/
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
transnational water mvement is a good example of how to commonise demands on a common ground: http://www.ips-dc.org/blog/water_is_not_for_sale_a_look_at_italys_water_move... https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/berlin-water-referendum-success-an-i... these examples would be also usful for the formulation you, we, need. The movement claims water as publicly produced common, yet cuts will hit water provision badly as well. On the contrary Italians and Germans writes their peer water laws. labour and water warriors works closely together and develop a common language: water as a human right, water as commons. can be a model. Quoting Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>:
please note someone inserted a wrong address for our list, i.e. [email protected]
instead of: [email protected]
would be nice if you could resend your recent emails to the right address, so the others can share in your insights and the discussion,
Michel
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Walton Pantland <[email protected]> wrote:
Good points.
This argument has its manifestation in the UK in the form of David Cameron's Big Society. Superficially it's a good idea: let's do away with heavy handed state bureaucracy, and a faceless centralised system that runs things with no regard for local needs, and replace it with a system where active citizens run things at local levels. This sounds good, and generally I am in favour of subsidiarity.
However, after Cameron came into power, the real meaning of the Big Society became apparent: the Government would massively cut funding to public libraries, community centres and a number of other institutions. If local people wanted to keep them open, they could volunteer to run them, for no remuneration. So the plan was to replace paid public servants with volunteers, and in some cases compel the unemployed to 'volunteer' to keep services open.
In the end, a Big Society needs infrastructure - a Commons that everyone can access.
Cheers
Walton
On 18 March 2011 10:40, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
thanks Jean!
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:30 PM, jean lievens <[email protected]>wrote:
Hi Michel,
Sorry, cannot use Outlook because I am in Sweden...
In my opinion, there is no real contradiction there, only two sides of the same coin. I think that capitalism is faced with a whole range of contradictions that cannot be solved if the present system is maintained. I've been reading a lot about 'happiness', the paradox of choice, behavioral economics etc. lately and what strikes me is that all these studies can be used in two ways: it can be used in defense of the system (rich people are not necessarily more happy than poor people, envy makes you unhappy, religious people are often more happy than non-believers, etc.), the system is rational but people are not... But on the other hand, I think these studies contain far more arguments in favour of a more just, egalitarian and far less materialistic society. I think ordinary people will gladly accept 'cuts' if they do not need to worry about their basic needs anymore (and that means extending the public sector, not cutting it), have more free time and far more control over their own lives. This means a fight for real political and economic democracy. Only in creating a system that is not based on the profit motive, but on the fulfillment of human needs, can the present contradictions be solved. But this is off course a general idea. The question is: how to get there? I think the role of the state and government are crucial here. We will not be able to jump from 'here' to 'there' in one leap as for example Chomsky seems to suggest. In order to get there, working people need to take over the control of the state, but at the same time turn the state institutions around and run them in a democratic manner. I think that self-organizing coordination groups over the internet will play a major role in this democratization process, but we need to develop this further. And in the meanwhile, we need to stand firm in defending working people and civil servants against unfair cuts. The elite will use any argument to let people swallow their austerity, including 'limits of growth' (as in the seventies) and the protection of the environment.
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-- Walton Pantland
2/1 48 Waverley Street Shawlands Glasgow G41 2DZ Scotland UK
Home: +44 (0)141 649 0645 Work Mobile: +44 (0)785 499 6113 Private Mobile: +44(0)7920100826 Skype: Leischa Twitter: @Leischa Web: http://redstarcoven.com/ http://cyberunions.org/
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
participants (2)
-
Michel Bauwens -
orsan＠tie-netherlands.nl