Re: [P2P-F] Reformist or radical
Dear Roberto, I really appreciated your contribution to the discussion around 'reform versus radical revolution'. Our ability to tolerate differences with people who are basically on the same side, seems crucial to me in overcoming the fragmentation and infighting which besets left activists, which Occupy did much to temporarily overcome. Equally I appreciate your reference to Riane Eisler and the dichotomy between dominator and partnership structures, which for me compliments, perhaps even replaces class and gender power structures, for its explanatory depth. The necessity for renewable energy to be distributed rather than centralised is a central tenet of Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution. And the application to agriculture is embodied in Via Campesina's campaign for food sovereignty and agroecology, both topics that have been discussed in these lists. The evolution towards something more human needs to include caring feelings which Rifkin attempted in his The Empathic Civilisation. Thanks again Anna On Aug 7, 2016 5:33 AM, "Roberto Verzola" <[email protected]> wrote:
In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to
But a lot of misjudgments are made, and some who think themselves very radical misjudge people who want fundamental change too, as people who just want to protect the present system. Furthermore, even those who want fundamental change will disagree among themselves up to what point change must happen. Are you just against high interest rates (but low rates are ok)? Are you against the entire principle of charging interest? Or maybe you are also against fractional reserve banking? But others are against the whole idea of fiat money too. Or are you for the abolition of money in general? Or perhaps against markets in general? Are you against specific bad corporations only, or against the corporate form of business in general, or against business in general? If some are not against money in general but only about some aspects of it, does that make them reformists now because because they want to retain other aspects of the money system? Or the market system for that matter. Someone's radical is somebody else's reformist. In such an incredibly complex situation, especially when activists continue to educate themselves along and their positions may change over time, it is not good to set onesself up as judge and brand people this or that, especially on an open list, as if one had exclusive monopoly over truth. In fact, most on this list are right some of the time and wrong some of the time. On a different note: I'm currently reading this (admittedly old--2004) book THE GREAT ADVENTURE: Towards a Fully Human Theory of Evolution by David Loye (ed.). It refers to "evolution theorist" Riane Eisler. It says Eisler in her contributed article "brings to life how, underlying the full range of human relationships from intimate to international are two basic social structures: the domination model and the partnership model". Eisler "shows how the tension between these two models has shaped history, and how the outcome of this tension is key to fulfillment or extinction for our species." Eisler might as well have written about the client/server vs the P2P model... In my current work on renewable energy, I am also coming across the same tension between the centralized power generation model and the distributed generation model. A similar tension exists in agriculture and many other areas, as Eisler has observed. Their efforts might yet provide another illuminating context to the P2P movement. The book itself describes an ongoing effort to marry psychology with the theory of evolution towards a new theory of *human* evolution that goes far beyond the "survival of the fittest" cliche of neo-darwinists. Greetings to all, Roberto Verzola Philippines On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:33:19 -0500 Kevin Carson <[email protected]> wrote:
In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to a system that is fundamentally different, but simply sees the transition as a medium- or long-term process, whereas the former wants to stabilize and ameliorate the existing system of power.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]>
wrote:
As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of clarity of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it; namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians.
Dear Orsan,
it seems we are re-doing here the 250 year old battle between revoluton and reformism, and that your critique of Pat, and sometimes of me, is that we are reformists.
Personally, I don't see myself as a reformism in the sense it was defined,
but, I do consider this:
* the record of revolution is abysmal, with at least 100 million death when the revolutionaries were in power (the soviet one, but the earlier french was almost as dramatic); and an untold number during the ongoing defeats of those that did not succeed
* the record of social democracy in its golden age was extraordinary, at least for the western working class, but I would argue, if you look at national liberation, that was also a fundamental advance, not to mention civil, gender rights etc ..
* but even the revolutionaries who were combatting reformism, were not against reforms
* now, there is a lot of evidence of social unrest, there were social and political and electoral s shifts that brought progressives to power, but is there any evidence that global south workers for example are revolutionary .. I would argue, they are not, even as they fight radically for social and labor improvements
People like Pat Conaty , and myself, want post-capitalist structural reforms, and a phase transition, but at the same time, we are not opposed to reforms and to any social advances that social movements can win
we want full and real democratization, an end to extractive regimes and practices
yet, you continuously paint us as enemies it seems, and use a sliding scale that always ends up with the enemies of the people
it always seems that your real enemy is not the 1%, but those of the 99% who do not share your views ..
I see pat conaty, john restakis and others in the network for a cooperative commonwealth and synergia, as people with a lifelong record of fighting for the betterment of their fellow humans
they want reforms, but they are not reformists,
Michel
-- 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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Eisler's cooperator vs. dominator framework, and Oppenheimer's conquest theory of the state, are possibly good complements to each other. Dominator societies with patriarchal sky-father religions and authoritarian child-rearing practices could be usefully treated as part of the same causal network as the class state. On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Roberto, I really appreciated your contribution to the discussion around 'reform versus radical revolution'. Our ability to tolerate differences with people who are basically on the same side, seems crucial to me in overcoming the fragmentation and infighting which besets left activists, which Occupy did much to temporarily overcome.
Equally I appreciate your reference to Riane Eisler and the dichotomy between dominator and partnership structures, which for me compliments, perhaps even replaces class and gender power structures, for its explanatory depth.
The necessity for renewable energy to be distributed rather than centralised is a central tenet of Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution. And the application to agriculture is embodied in Via Campesina's campaign for food sovereignty and agroecology, both topics that have been discussed in these lists.
The evolution towards something more human needs to include caring feelings which Rifkin attempted in his The Empathic Civilisation.
Thanks again
Anna
On Aug 7, 2016 5:33 AM, "Roberto Verzola" <[email protected]> wrote:
In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to
But a lot of misjudgments are made, and some who think themselves very radical misjudge people who want fundamental change too, as people who just want to protect the present system.
Furthermore, even those who want fundamental change will disagree among themselves up to what point change must happen. Are you just against high interest rates (but low rates are ok)? Are you against the entire principle of charging interest? Or maybe you are also against fractional reserve banking? But others are against the whole idea of fiat money too. Or are you for the abolition of money in general? Or perhaps against markets in general? Are you against specific bad corporations only, or against the corporate form of business in general, or against business in general? If some are not against money in general but only about some aspects of it, does that make them reformists now because because they want to retain other aspects of the money system? Or the market system for that matter. Someone's radical is somebody else's reformist.
In such an incredibly complex situation, especially when activists continue to educate themselves along and their positions may change over time, it is not good to set onesself up as judge and brand people this or that, especially on an open list, as if one had exclusive monopoly over truth.
In fact, most on this list are right some of the time and wrong some of the time.
On a different note: I'm currently reading this (admittedly old--2004) book THE GREAT ADVENTURE: Towards a Fully Human Theory of Evolution by David Loye (ed.). It refers to "evolution theorist" Riane Eisler. It says Eisler in her contributed article "brings to life how, underlying the full range of human relationships from intimate to international are two basic social structures: the domination model and the partnership model". Eisler "shows how the tension between these two models has shaped history, and how the outcome of this tension is key to fulfillment or extinction for our species."
Eisler might as well have written about the client/server vs the P2P model... In my current work on renewable energy, I am also coming across the same tension between the centralized power generation model and the distributed generation model. A similar tension exists in agriculture and many other areas, as Eisler has observed. Their efforts might yet provide another illuminating context to the P2P movement.
The book itself describes an ongoing effort to marry psychology with the theory of evolution towards a new theory of *human* evolution that goes far beyond the "survival of the fittest" cliche of neo-darwinists.
Greetings to all,
Roberto Verzola Philippines
On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:33:19 -0500 Kevin Carson <[email protected]> wrote:
In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to a system that is fundamentally different, but simply sees the transition as a medium- or long-term process, whereas the former wants to stabilize and ameliorate the existing system of power.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]> wrote:
As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of clarity of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it; namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians.
Dear Orsan,
it seems we are re-doing here the 250 year old battle between revoluton and reformism, and that your critique of Pat, and sometimes of me, is that we are reformists.
Personally, I don't see myself as a reformism in the sense it was defined,
but, I do consider this:
* the record of revolution is abysmal, with at least 100 million death when the revolutionaries were in power (the soviet one, but the earlier french was almost as dramatic); and an untold number during the ongoing defeats of those that did not succeed
* the record of social democracy in its golden age was extraordinary, at least for the western working class, but I would argue, if you look at national liberation, that was also a fundamental advance, not to mention civil, gender rights etc ..
* but even the revolutionaries who were combatting reformism, were not against reforms
* now, there is a lot of evidence of social unrest, there were social and political and electoral s shifts that brought progressives to power, but is there any evidence that global south workers for example are revolutionary .. I would argue, they are not, even as they fight radically for social and labor improvements
People like Pat Conaty , and myself, want post-capitalist structural reforms, and a phase transition, but at the same time, we are not opposed to reforms and to any social advances that social movements can win
we want full and real democratization, an end to extractive regimes and practices
yet, you continuously paint us as enemies it seems, and use a sliding scale that always ends up with the enemies of the people
it always seems that your real enemy is not the 1%, but those of the 99% who do not share your views ..
I see pat conaty, john restakis and others in the network for a cooperative commonwealth and synergia, as people with a lifelong record of fighting for the betterment of their fellow humans
they want reforms, but they are not reformists,
Michel
-- 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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- 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 Anna, I'm glad it was useful. I'm currently engaged in work that will explore the potential of RE-based microgrids as commons. I also coordinate a farming network that promotes the system of rice intensification (SRI) in the Philippines. Earlier I had done a lot of work on the information economy. So I have seen first hand these tensions between centralized vs decentralized, domination vs partnership models, and client/server vs P2P. Greetings, Roberto On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 22:11:58 +0100 Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Roberto, I really appreciated your contribution to the discussion around 'reform versus radical revolution'. Our ability to tolerate differences with people who are basically on the same side, seems crucial to me in overcoming the fragmentation and infighting which besets left activists, which Occupy did much to temporarily overcome.
Equally I appreciate your reference to Riane Eisler and the dichotomy between dominator and partnership structures, which for me compliments, perhaps even replaces class and gender power structures, for its explanatory depth.
The necessity for renewable energy to be distributed rather than centralised is a central tenet of Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution. And the application to agriculture is embodied in Via Campesina's campaign for food sovereignty and agroecology, both topics that have been discussed in these lists.
The evolution towards something more human needs to include caring feelings which Rifkin attempted in his The Empathic Civilisation.
Thanks again
Anna
On Aug 7, 2016 5:33 AM, "Roberto Verzola" <[email protected]> wrote:
In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to
But a lot of misjudgments are made, and some who think themselves very radical misjudge people who want fundamental change too, as people who just want to protect the present system.
Furthermore, even those who want fundamental change will disagree among themselves up to what point change must happen. Are you just against high interest rates (but low rates are ok)? Are you against the entire principle of charging interest? Or maybe you are also against fractional reserve banking? But others are against the whole idea of fiat money too. Or are you for the abolition of money in general? Or perhaps against markets in general? Are you against specific bad corporations only, or against the corporate form of business in general, or against business in general? If some are not against money in general but only about some aspects of it, does that make them reformists now because because they want to retain other aspects of the money system? Or the market system for that matter. Someone's radical is somebody else's reformist.
In such an incredibly complex situation, especially when activists continue to educate themselves along and their positions may change over time, it is not good to set onesself up as judge and brand people this or that, especially on an open list, as if one had exclusive monopoly over truth.
In fact, most on this list are right some of the time and wrong some of the time.
On a different note: I'm currently reading this (admittedly old--2004) book THE GREAT ADVENTURE: Towards a Fully Human Theory of Evolution by David Loye (ed.). It refers to "evolution theorist" Riane Eisler. It says Eisler in her contributed article "brings to life how, underlying the full range of human relationships from intimate to international are two basic social structures: the domination model and the partnership model". Eisler "shows how the tension between these two models has shaped history, and how the outcome of this tension is key to fulfillment or extinction for our species."
Eisler might as well have written about the client/server vs the P2P model... In my current work on renewable energy, I am also coming across the same tension between the centralized power generation model and the distributed generation model. A similar tension exists in agriculture and many other areas, as Eisler has observed. Their efforts might yet provide another illuminating context to the P2P movement.
The book itself describes an ongoing effort to marry psychology with the theory of evolution towards a new theory of *human* evolution that goes far beyond the "survival of the fittest" cliche of neo-darwinists.
Greetings to all,
Roberto Verzola Philippines
On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:33:19 -0500 Kevin Carson <[email protected]> wrote:
In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to a system that is fundamentally different, but simply sees the transition as a medium- or long-term process, whereas the former wants to stabilize and ameliorate the existing system of power.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]>
wrote:
As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of clarity of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it; namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians.
Dear Orsan,
it seems we are re-doing here the 250 year old battle between revoluton and reformism, and that your critique of Pat, and sometimes of me, is that we are reformists.
Personally, I don't see myself as a reformism in the sense it was defined,
but, I do consider this:
* the record of revolution is abysmal, with at least 100 million death when the revolutionaries were in power (the soviet one, but the earlier french was almost as dramatic); and an untold number during the ongoing defeats of those that did not succeed
* the record of social democracy in its golden age was extraordinary, at least for the western working class, but I would argue, if you look at national liberation, that was also a fundamental advance, not to mention civil, gender rights etc ..
* but even the revolutionaries who were combatting reformism, were not against reforms
* now, there is a lot of evidence of social unrest, there were social and political and electoral s shifts that brought progressives to power, but is there any evidence that global south workers for example are revolutionary .. I would argue, they are not, even as they fight radically for social and labor improvements
People like Pat Conaty , and myself, want post-capitalist structural reforms, and a phase transition, but at the same time, we are not opposed to reforms and to any social advances that social movements can win
we want full and real democratization, an end to extractive regimes and practices
yet, you continuously paint us as enemies it seems, and use a sliding scale that always ends up with the enemies of the people
it always seems that your real enemy is not the 1%, but those of the 99% who do not share your views ..
I see pat conaty, john restakis and others in the network for a cooperative commonwealth and synergia, as people with a lifelong record of fighting for the betterment of their fellow humans
they want reforms, but they are not reformists,
Michel
-- 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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
Dear Roberto, I would be very interested to hear more of your work on the potential of RE based microgrids as commons. Of course domination versus partnership models, power over or power with, is the basic choice that confronts us in every relationship, relating through fear or love. Capitalism promotes competetive relationships based on fear, through artificial scarcity, socialism promotes collaboration based on love through sharing. This may appear a simplification, but it goes to the heart of Eisler's insight. And the natural tension between the two, between self and other, runs through our personal and collective history, pointing towards a more 'human', ie more loving lifestyle. On Aug 8, 2016 5:11 AM, "Roberto Verzola" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Anna,
I'm glad it was useful. I'm currently engaged in work that will explore the potential of RE-based microgrids as commons. I also coordinate a farming network that promotes the system of rice intensification (SRI) in the Philippines. Earlier I had done a lot of work on the information economy. So I have seen first hand these tensions between centralized vs decentralized, domination vs partnership models, and client/server vs P2P.
Greetings,
Roberto
On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 22:11:58 +0100 Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Roberto, I really appreciated your contribution to the discussion around 'reform versus radical revolution'. Our ability to tolerate differences with people who are basically on the same side, seems crucial to me in overcoming the fragmentation and infighting which besets left activists, which Occupy did much to temporarily overcome.
Equally I appreciate your reference to Riane Eisler and the dichotomy between dominator and partnership structures, which for me compliments, perhaps even replaces class and gender power structures, for its explanatory depth.
The necessity for renewable energy to be distributed rather than centralised is a central tenet of Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution. And the application to agriculture is embodied in Via Campesina's campaign for food sovereignty and agroecology, both topics that have been discussed in these lists.
The evolution towards something more human needs to include caring feelings which Rifkin attempted in his The Empathic Civilisation.
Thanks again
Anna
On Aug 7, 2016 5:33 AM, "Roberto Verzola" <[email protected]> wrote:
In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to
But a lot of misjudgments are made, and some who think themselves very radical misjudge people who want fundamental change too, as people who just want to protect the present system.
Furthermore, even those who want fundamental change will disagree among themselves up to what point change must happen. Are you just against high interest rates (but low rates are ok)? Are you against the entire principle of charging interest? Or maybe you are also against fractional reserve banking? But others are against the whole idea of fiat money too. Or are you for the abolition of money in general? Or perhaps against markets in general? Are you against specific bad corporations only, or against the corporate form of business in general, or against business in general? If some are not against money in general but only about some aspects of it, does that make them reformists now because because they want to retain other aspects of the money system? Or the market system for that matter. Someone's radical is somebody else's reformist.
In such an incredibly complex situation, especially when activists continue to educate themselves along and their positions may change over time, it is not good to set onesself up as judge and brand people this or that, especially on an open list, as if one had exclusive monopoly over truth.
In fact, most on this list are right some of the time and wrong some of the time.
On a different note: I'm currently reading this (admittedly old--2004) book THE GREAT ADVENTURE: Towards a Fully Human Theory of Evolution by David Loye (ed.). It refers to "evolution theorist" Riane Eisler. It says Eisler in her contributed article "brings to life how, underlying the full range of human relationships from intimate to international are two basic social structures: the domination model and the partnership model". Eisler "shows how the tension between these two models has shaped history, and how the outcome of this tension is key to fulfillment or extinction for our species."
Eisler might as well have written about the client/server vs the P2P model... In my current work on renewable energy, I am also coming across the same tension between the centralized power generation model and the distributed generation model. A similar tension exists in agriculture and many other areas, as Eisler has observed. Their efforts might yet provide another illuminating context to the P2P movement.
The book itself describes an ongoing effort to marry psychology with the theory of evolution towards a new theory of *human* evolution that goes far beyond the "survival of the fittest" cliche of neo-darwinists.
Greetings to all,
Roberto Verzola Philippines
On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:33:19 -0500 Kevin Carson <[email protected]> wrote:
In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to a system that is fundamentally different, but simply sees the transition as a medium- or long-term process, whereas the former wants to stabilize and ameliorate the existing system of power.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]>
wrote:
As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of
clarity
of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it; namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians.
Dear Orsan,
it seems we are re-doing here the 250 year old battle between revoluton and reformism, and that your critique of Pat, and sometimes of me, is that we are reformists.
Personally, I don't see myself as a reformism in the sense it was defined,
but, I do consider this:
* the record of revolution is abysmal, with at least 100 million death when the revolutionaries were in power (the soviet one, but the earlier french was almost as dramatic); and an untold number during the ongoing defeats of those that did not succeed
* the record of social democracy in its golden age was extraordinary, at least for the western working class, but I would argue, if you look at national liberation, that was also a fundamental advance, not to mention civil, gender rights etc ..
* but even the revolutionaries who were combatting reformism, were not against reforms
* now, there is a lot of evidence of social unrest, there were social and political and electoral s shifts that brought progressives to power, but is there any evidence that global south workers for example are revolutionary .. I would argue, they are not, even as they fight radically for social and labor improvements
People like Pat Conaty , and myself, want post-capitalist structural reforms, and a phase transition, but at the same time, we are not opposed to reforms and to any social advances that social movements can win
we want full and real democratization, an end to extractive regimes and practices
yet, you continuously paint us as enemies it seems, and use a sliding scale that always ends up with the enemies of the people
it always seems that your real enemy is not the 1%, but those of the 99% who do not share your views ..
I see pat conaty, john restakis and others in the network for a cooperative commonwealth and synergia, as people with a lifelong record of fighting for the betterment of their fellow humans
they want reforms, but they are not reformists,
Michel
-- 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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Hi Anna, If you want to know more about the our RE framework, please google "crossing over by verzola" and download the full text of my book Crossing Over: The Energy Transition to Renewable Electricity. A second edition will be published hopefully next month (the fulltext will also be online). After the book was published, we are now trying to work with some local governments to set up 100% RE showcase projects where we can test institutional arrangements in microgrids (small grids using the household voltage in their distribution backbone), in situations where households have solar panels on their rooftops and therefore have surplus some of the time (usually at midday) and are short at some other times. Our conclusion is that net metering is the best accounting mechanism to keep track of these exchanges. Not all local governments we work it will see it as a commons, but maybe along the way, we can win them over to this perspective. We are still at the early stages. We've done the pre-feasibility studies in 7 sites, and are now looking for funds to start developing the RE showcases (basically a mix of micro-RE plants (possibly solar, hydro, biomass etc, whatever the available resources in the area are). Next month we will also conduct a one-month training course for our second batch of local government partners. These projects will not have a uniform approach. Those who will run the projects will have the final say. Hopefully, in some (or many) of these projects, when they materialize, will give us a lot of room for experimentation and in some of these, a commons approach might show enough success, that we can replicate and improve on in subsequent projects. So these are all quite tentative at the moment. What is clear to us is the promise of making microgrids run like commons (where people share electricity, just as we share information now). Initially, shared kWh will be recorded on common electric meters and people will pay or get paid, depending on the amount of their contribution. But who knows what will happen as solar and wind electricity get cheaper and cheaper? Maybe the same trend of sharing freely will emerge. (Or maybe not...). I am also developing an analysis of how RE may further grow in a way the creates virtuous cycles of decreasing prices, increasing production and expanding markets, as what happened in the microcomputer industry (now known by some other names). These virtuous cycles may arise if economies of scale are realized in the RE industry, and as I see it, such economies of scale can happen if generating plants become smaller rather than larger in size, in the same way that mainframes were eventually replaced by microcomputers (desktops, laptops, netbooks, smartphones, embedded controllers etc.). Thus, I am arguing for microwind, microhydro, and microplants in general. We call our advocacy micro-RE. I circulated earlier on this list (I think!) an early paper about this, entitled "Can micropower be as much a gamechanger as microprocessing?". If you google the title, you may still find it. A subsequent paper is currently under peer-review for an energy conference, and I will release it once I'm allowed to. My other advocacy is the system of rice intensification and organic rice farming, which is another long story. When I cited Riane Eisler's domination vs partnership models, I really didn't mean to embrace that entire binary approach. I don't buy into the capitalism versus socialism perspective either (with apologies to the hard-core socialists on this list). For one, I consider Green a third option... The deeply religious will probably have another... What all the advocates of these different perspectives need to consider is what is called the law of unintended consequences. It is the result (or maybe the cause?) of our inability to predict the future. In software, they are called bugs. Attempts at social engineering and design have bugs too. I have no doubt that the revolutionary radicals who gave their lives for the Russian revolution were motivated by honest, dedicated fellows who had nothing in mind but the good of all. But the social system they created eventually gave us a Stalin, and elsewhere a Pol Pot and a Kim Il-sung. Revolutionaries today of similar persuasion may insist that they will learn from their predecessors' mistakes. This would be like software designers claiming that their design will have no bugs because they have learned from previous buggy designs. The law of unintended consequences asserts itself in surprising ways. This is not to say that we should therefore stop trying to improve things, because our work will have bugs and unintended consequences anyway. I'm just saying that we should not be too cocksure of ourselves, because our work will surely have bugs too. If software design, which is implemented through a fully specified deterministic system, can have bugs, how much more the design of societies and economies, which are comprised of living, thinking human beings whose minds we have no design specifications and who behave non-deterministically? Greetings, Roberto On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 08:02:03 +0100 Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Roberto, I would be very interested to hear more of your work on the potential of RE based microgrids as commons.
Of course domination versus partnership models, power over or power with, is the basic choice that confronts us in every relationship, relating through fear or love. Capitalism promotes competetive relationships based on fear, through artificial scarcity, socialism promotes collaboration based on love through sharing. This may appear a simplification, but it goes to the heart of Eisler's insight. And the natural tension between the two, between self and other, runs through our personal and collective history, pointing towards a more 'human', ie more loving lifestyle.
On Aug 8, 2016 5:11 AM, "Roberto Verzola" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Anna,
I'm glad it was useful. I'm currently engaged in work that will explore the potential of RE-based microgrids as commons. I also coordinate a farming network that promotes the system of rice intensification (SRI) in the Philippines. Earlier I had done a lot of work on the information economy. So I have seen first hand these tensions between centralized vs decentralized, domination vs partnership models, and client/server vs P2P.
Greetings,
Roberto
On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 22:11:58 +0100 Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Roberto, I really appreciated your contribution to the discussion around 'reform versus radical revolution'. Our ability to tolerate differences with people who are basically on the same side, seems crucial to me in overcoming the fragmentation and infighting which besets left activists, which Occupy did much to temporarily overcome.
Equally I appreciate your reference to Riane Eisler and the dichotomy between dominator and partnership structures, which for me compliments, perhaps even replaces class and gender power structures, for its explanatory depth.
The necessity for renewable energy to be distributed rather than centralised is a central tenet of Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution. And the application to agriculture is embodied in Via Campesina's campaign for food sovereignty and agroecology, both topics that have been discussed in these lists.
The evolution towards something more human needs to include caring feelings which Rifkin attempted in his The Empathic Civilisation.
Thanks again
Anna
On Aug 7, 2016 5:33 AM, "Roberto Verzola" <[email protected]> wrote:
In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to
But a lot of misjudgments are made, and some who think themselves very radical misjudge people who want fundamental change too, as people who just want to protect the present system.
Furthermore, even those who want fundamental change will disagree among themselves up to what point change must happen. Are you just against high interest rates (but low rates are ok)? Are you against the entire principle of charging interest? Or maybe you are also against fractional reserve banking? But others are against the whole idea of fiat money too. Or are you for the abolition of money in general? Or perhaps against markets in general? Are you against specific bad corporations only, or against the corporate form of business in general, or against business in general? If some are not against money in general but only about some aspects of it, does that make them reformists now because because they want to retain other aspects of the money system? Or the market system for that matter. Someone's radical is somebody else's reformist.
In such an incredibly complex situation, especially when activists continue to educate themselves along and their positions may change over time, it is not good to set onesself up as judge and brand people this or that, especially on an open list, as if one had exclusive monopoly over truth.
In fact, most on this list are right some of the time and wrong some of the time.
On a different note: I'm currently reading this (admittedly old--2004) book THE GREAT ADVENTURE: Towards a Fully Human Theory of Evolution by David Loye (ed.). It refers to "evolution theorist" Riane Eisler. It says Eisler in her contributed article "brings to life how, underlying the full range of human relationships from intimate to international are two basic social structures: the domination model and the partnership model". Eisler "shows how the tension between these two models has shaped history, and how the outcome of this tension is key to fulfillment or extinction for our species."
Eisler might as well have written about the client/server vs the P2P model... In my current work on renewable energy, I am also coming across the same tension between the centralized power generation model and the distributed generation model. A similar tension exists in agriculture and many other areas, as Eisler has observed. Their efforts might yet provide another illuminating context to the P2P movement.
The book itself describes an ongoing effort to marry psychology with the theory of evolution towards a new theory of *human* evolution that goes far beyond the "survival of the fittest" cliche of neo-darwinists.
Greetings to all,
Roberto Verzola Philippines
On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:33:19 -0500 Kevin Carson <[email protected]> wrote:
In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to a system that is fundamentally different, but simply sees the transition as a medium- or long-term process, whereas the former wants to stabilize and ameliorate the existing system of power.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Örsan Şenalp <[email protected]>
wrote:
As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of
clarity
of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it; namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians.
Dear Orsan,
it seems we are re-doing here the 250 year old battle between revoluton and reformism, and that your critique of Pat, and sometimes of me, is that we are reformists.
Personally, I don't see myself as a reformism in the sense it was defined,
but, I do consider this:
* the record of revolution is abysmal, with at least 100 million death when the revolutionaries were in power (the soviet one, but the earlier french was almost as dramatic); and an untold number during the ongoing defeats of those that did not succeed
* the record of social democracy in its golden age was extraordinary, at least for the western working class, but I would argue, if you look at national liberation, that was also a fundamental advance, not to mention civil, gender rights etc ..
* but even the revolutionaries who were combatting reformism, were not against reforms
* now, there is a lot of evidence of social unrest, there were social and political and electoral s shifts that brought progressives to power, but is there any evidence that global south workers for example are revolutionary .. I would argue, they are not, even as they fight radically for social and labor improvements
People like Pat Conaty , and myself, want post-capitalist structural reforms, and a phase transition, but at the same time, we are not opposed to reforms and to any social advances that social movements can win
we want full and real democratization, an end to extractive regimes and practices
yet, you continuously paint us as enemies it seems, and use a sliding scale that always ends up with the enemies of the people
it always seems that your real enemy is not the 1%, but those of the 99% who do not share your views ..
I see pat conaty, john restakis and others in the network for a cooperative commonwealth and synergia, as people with a lifelong record of fighting for the betterment of their fellow humans
they want reforms, but they are not reformists,
Michel
-- 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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list
Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Roberto Verzola <[email protected]>
participants (3)
-
Anna Harris -
Kevin Carson -
Roberto Verzola