Re: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Robin Murray on Post-Post-Fordism
Thank you for this Peter. Extremely interesting analysis of past and future economic trends. In passing it answers Orsan's point about positive and hope being in the 'non-automatable part of life and human'. 'They always looked to see if knowledge could be codified, yet knew that you had to have tacit knowledge to apply and customise the codification. That tacit knowledge might itself be codified. but that too needs further tacit knowledge. and so on. It was a constant movement of codification plus the tacit, never the eradication of the tacit. The moment you lose the tacit, living labour, the codification atrophies.' (p13) In other words the two functions are not opposed to each other, but are complementary. The key is whether they are used to exploit by extracting a profit, or to benefit society. Anna
On 6 Nov 2015, at 14:03, Peter Waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
<nf8485_murray_gilbert_goffey.pdf>
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
Indeed, agree with Anna, it is extremely interesting analysis from Robin Murray. I think interviewers were referred by Wark's piece on Inventing Future book. The interview is a really enlightening one to me. On the one hand, because it was in Amsterdam networked labour gathering Robin and Michel met, and there were others mentioned in the interview like Hilary Wainwright, whose specific warning I always take as a guidance, makes this input special. While reading the text I remembered something Hilary used to talked, or warned about which was avoiding to replicate the mistake of of 68 generation (or resistance to capitalism / rulers in general) in helping capitalism reinvent itself. I took that warning very serious and kept in mind. And while reading Robin's story, things get both clear and fuzzy at the same time, in terms of this mistake. Below is again relevant event; the intro page of Platform Cooperativism conference taking place in NY next week. While looking at the Platform that is formed by the organizers, Scholz and Schinider which brings funders like Ford and Rosa Luxemburg, with unions like IG metal and Free Lancers Union, as well as participants like head of Microsoft research unit and CEO of free lancers Union co. Horowicth on the one hand and those like Stallman, Barbrook, Bauwens, Wark, Kleiner, Mayo, so on on the other.. My confusion accelerated - in relation to Hilary's warning. Can't help asking myself aren't, we, or this setting is helping out to capitalism to reinvent itself towards post-post-fordism. Even though the hope, or politics behind is that we culturally could make a good influence on the enemy, may be transform their thinking? Hence whilst I see Wark's criticism about this point and share his worries, what appears interesting is that he is on of the most enthusiasts attendant -as Trebor he is being part of the New School cadre hosting the event. Moreover, thinking of the recent piece shared by Fabian, by Tiziana; whose Social Strike piece were at the from page of the last years' Digital Labour event, my confusion increased since these are most radical critics of enemy we face here! Same goes for the '..to our friends' comrades, who sits at board of 'Invisible Committee', to whom Wark refers critically again in his review of Inventing Future (see his: http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/06/no-futurism/) and the links they have to the Powerful, the %1 percent. As occupiers of Occupy Wall St. online accounts (Micah White took over the twitter account and Justin Tunney (trans gender anarchist tool over the OWS blog admin letter is hired by Google as 'software developer' and white founded his boutique revolution kickstart). Why all makes things become so fuzzy? Especially when realizing all these comrades and friends, somehow follow one or another version of Foucault-Deleuze-Laclau-Negri sort of radicalism, as those who are being linked to undertakings like transnational social strike.. One would normally can't stop thinking what all these mean? What it makes me feel though, assertively speaking, that roundabout power politics never help in avoiding the mistake Hilary was remixing. Especially for those being squeezed and oppressed all the time. However such politics has been extremely helpful to those swimming in wealth and patent rights, those emerging as new victors out of the intra-class struggle marking the current crises as, Wark was rightly indicating. So that complex restructure of global oppression system not only survive but evolve in something worse each time. I wonder, therefore, why can't we talk and act assertively, openly, and ethically correct way instead amongst the forces of resistance, and towards forces and beneficiaries of oppression? What makes it immensely difficult? While everybody knows that there is or will be any tool or form; be it 'platform', portal, coop, p2p, network, tech, automation, nor basic income, serving for emancipation if we do not transform our selves and our beings. Robin's story of the past, tells me that we are again providing enormous amount of smart and useful analysis to stupid, narsist, psychopathological ruling cadre that possess all the means to control and oppress. The below event is not my main point of target here. And I do not accuse anyone for choosing specific politics or strategy. But what is crystal clear is that the entire network and relationships, built between actors belong to resistances in nature and those from rulers including Harvard, MIT, Mellon, to publishers (like Semiotext working with MIT -invisible committee books distributed by), from expensive projects funded by EU and EC, Ford, Rockefellar, Google, Microsoft, so on as well as political alliances built under guidance of the Club of Rome, Club of Budapest, Month Pelerin Society, World Economic Forum, ect. ect.. There is a certain and definite repetition of the mistake Hilary Wainwright used to warn about. It is not my intention to judge or hurt others feelings, but at this moment I do look and hope for rising up of the naive, good, and independent working people for themselves, forming their own p2p relationships, platforms, events, institutions and alliances, that would never receive any project money in return of sensitive strategic tacit knowledge. Who are trusting themselves and each other in growing hope; instead of investing hope and giving their destiny to wrong hands, or offering in exchange feeing need of income. Who grasps that there are really, socially, genetically and culturally bed people out there mostly at the most top, who can not help (because of individual and structural reasons) to reverse and exploit our inventions, findings, and our tacit knowledge, for their horrible, selfish, childish and irresponsible interests. O. ...... Platform Cooperativism Introduction. http://platformcoop.net The seeds are being planted for a new kind of online economy. For all the wonders the Internet brings us, it is dominated by an economics of monopoly, extraction, and surveillance. Ordinary users retain little control over their personal data, and the digital workplace is creeping into every corner of workers’ lives. Online platforms often exploit and exacerbate existing inequalities in society, even while promising to be the great equalizers. Could the Internet be owned and governed differently? What if Uber drivers could set up their own platform, or if cities could control their own version of Airbnb? Can Silicon Alley do things more democratically than Silicon Valley? What are the prospects for platform cooperativism? On November 13 and 14, the New School in New York City will host a coming-out party for the cooperative Internet, built of platforms owned and governed by the people who rely on them. The program will include discussion sessions, screenings, monologues, legal hacks, workshops, and dialogues, as well as a showcase of projects, both conceptual and actual, under the purview of celebrity judges. We’ll learn from coders and worker cooperatives, scholars and designers. Together, we’ll put their lessons to work as we work toward usable apps and structural economic change. This is your chance to get on the ground floor of the next Internet, and to help make it a reality. Platform Cooperativism is convened by Trebor Scholz(The New School) and Nathan Schneider (University of Colorado Boulder). Further reading: Trebor Scholz, “Platform Cooperativism vs. the Sharing Economy” (December 5, 2014) and ”Think Outside the Boss,” Public Seminar (April 5, 2015) Nathan Schneider, “Owning Is the New Sharing,” Shareable (December 21, 2014) Janelle Orsi, Frank Pasquale, Nathan Schneider, Pia Mancini, Trebor Scholz, “5 Ways to Take Back Tech,” The Nation (May 27, 2015) Nathan Schneider, “Owning What We Share,” Pacific Standard (September 1, 2015) Sponsors & Partners Platform Cooperativism is sponsored by Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts, The Ford Foundation, The Freelancers Union, The New School University Student Senate, The Workers Lab, IG Metal, Institute for the Future, Demand Progress, Internet and Society, The Robert L. Heilbronner Center for Capitalism Studies, the University of Colorado Boulder, Democracy at Work Institute, The Digital Humanities Minor at The New School, The Lang Student Senate, and The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation NYC. The event is presented in partnership with Carnegie Mellon School of Design, Civic Hall, Democracy Collaborative, Green Worker Cooperatives, The Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies at CUNY, the New Economy Coalition, The Robin Hood Foundation, Shareable, The United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Ver.di, The Working World, The Laura Flanders Show, and The Yale Information Society Project. This is the fourth event in The New School’s series The Politics of Digital Culture, which included The Internet as Playground & Factory (2009) and Digital Labor (2014), among other conferences. There will be two additional summits in this series, following up on these themes, in 2016. Twitter: @platformcoop #platformcoop
On 7 nov. 2015, at 12:52, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for this Peter. Extremely interesting analysis of past and future economic trends. In passing it answers Orsan's point about positive and hope being in the 'non-automatable part of life and human'. 'They always looked to see if knowledge could be codified, yet knew that you had to have tacit knowledge to apply and customise the codification. That tacit knowledge might itself be codified. but that too needs further tacit knowledge. and so on. It was a constant movement of codification plus the tacit, never the eradication of the tacit. The moment you lose the tacit, living labour, the codification atrophies.' (p13)
In other words the two functions are not opposed to each other, but are complementary. The key is whether they are used to exploit by extracting a profit, or to benefit society.
Anna
On 6 Nov 2015, at 14:03, Peter Waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
<nf8485_murray_gilbert_goffey.pdf>
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
This below paragraph is from Bogdanov's 1918 presentation: 3. This narrowness is already being felt in the very material of science, that is to say in the content of experience it organises; this is especially so in the social sciences. Thus, in the study of relations of production, bourgeois science could not grasp or to distinguish the particular higher form, of collectivist fraternal cooperation, because this form is virtually unknown to the bourgeois classes. Even more significant is the narrowness of this fundamental perspective which is evident across the whole of bourgeois science and which is due to the same position of the bourgeois classes in the social system, including their way of life. This special feature is the split between science and its real basis: socialised labour. - Where Bogdanov fails to see and anticipate here is that first he underestimate the 'human use' or exploitation capacity, and then the expertise and technics of the ruling / capitalist classes, or bourgeoise to manipulate and assimilate knowledge from their counterparts. In real, historical experience shows that they are, in a similar way to sociopath serial killer, extremely talented to realize, find out any threat to status quo and extremely experienced / equipped in manipulating and assimilating actors behind the threat. Definitely collectivist models of production and comradely ethics, and innovation in this field is something would be the priority target for the ruling class. O.
On 7 nov. 2015, at 15:26, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote:
Indeed, agree with Anna, it is extremely interesting analysis from Robin Murray. I think interviewers were referred by Wark's piece on Inventing Future book. The interview is a really enlightening one to me.
On the one hand, because it was in Amsterdam networked labour gathering Robin and Michel met, and there were others mentioned in the interview like Hilary Wainwright, whose specific warning I always take as a guidance, makes this input special. While reading the text I remembered something Hilary used to talked, or warned about which was avoiding to replicate the mistake of of 68 generation (or resistance to capitalism / rulers in general) in helping capitalism reinvent itself. I took that warning very serious and kept in mind. And while reading Robin's story, things get both clear and fuzzy at the same time, in terms of this mistake.
Below is again relevant event; the intro page of Platform Cooperativism conference taking place in NY next week. While looking at the Platform that is formed by the organizers, Scholz and Schinider which brings funders like Ford and Rosa Luxemburg, with unions like IG metal and Free Lancers Union, as well as participants like head of Microsoft research unit and CEO of free lancers Union co. Horowicth on the one hand and those like Stallman, Barbrook, Bauwens, Wark, Kleiner, Mayo, so on on the other.. My confusion accelerated - in relation to Hilary's warning. Can't help asking myself aren't, we, or this setting is helping out to capitalism to reinvent itself towards post-post-fordism. Even though the hope, or politics behind is that we culturally could make a good influence on the enemy, may be transform their thinking?
Hence whilst I see Wark's criticism about this point and share his worries, what appears interesting is that he is on of the most enthusiasts attendant -as Trebor he is being part of the New School cadre hosting the event. Moreover, thinking of the recent piece shared by Fabian, by Tiziana; whose Social Strike piece were at the from page of the last years' Digital Labour event, my confusion increased since these are most radical critics of enemy we face here! Same goes for the '..to our friends' comrades, who sits at board of 'Invisible Committee', to whom Wark refers critically again in his review of Inventing Future (see his: http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/06/no-futurism/) and the links they have to the Powerful, the %1 percent. As occupiers of Occupy Wall St. online accounts (Micah White took over the twitter account and Justin Tunney (trans gender anarchist tool over the OWS blog admin letter is hired by Google as 'software developer' and white founded his boutique revolution kickstart). Why all makes things become so fuzzy? Especially when realizing all these comrades and friends, somehow follow one or another version of Foucault-Deleuze-Laclau-Negri sort of radicalism, as those who are being linked to undertakings like transnational social strike.. One would normally can't stop thinking what all these mean?
What it makes me feel though, assertively speaking, that roundabout power politics never help in avoiding the mistake Hilary was remixing. Especially for those being squeezed and oppressed all the time. However such politics has been extremely helpful to those swimming in wealth and patent rights, those emerging as new victors out of the intra-class struggle marking the current crises as, Wark was rightly indicating. So that complex restructure of global oppression system not only survive but evolve in something worse each time.
I wonder, therefore, why can't we talk and act assertively, openly, and ethically correct way instead amongst the forces of resistance, and towards forces and beneficiaries of oppression? What makes it immensely difficult? While everybody knows that there is or will be any tool or form; be it 'platform', portal, coop, p2p, network, tech, automation, nor basic income, serving for emancipation if we do not transform our selves and our beings.
Robin's story of the past, tells me that we are again providing enormous amount of smart and useful analysis to stupid, narsist, psychopathological ruling cadre that possess all the means to control and oppress. The below event is not my main point of target here. And I do not accuse anyone for choosing specific politics or strategy.
But what is crystal clear is that the entire network and relationships, built between actors belong to resistances in nature and those from rulers including Harvard, MIT, Mellon, to publishers (like Semiotext working with MIT -invisible committee books distributed by), from expensive projects funded by EU and EC, Ford, Rockefellar, Google, Microsoft, so on as well as political alliances built under guidance of the Club of Rome, Club of Budapest, Month Pelerin Society, World Economic Forum, ect. ect.. There is a certain and definite repetition of the mistake Hilary Wainwright used to warn about.
It is not my intention to judge or hurt others feelings, but at this moment I do look and hope for rising up of the naive, good, and independent working people for themselves, forming their own p2p relationships, platforms, events, institutions and alliances, that would never receive any project money in return of sensitive strategic tacit knowledge. Who are trusting themselves and each other in growing hope; instead of investing hope and giving their destiny to wrong hands, or offering in exchange feeing need of income. Who grasps that there are really, socially, genetically and culturally bed people out there mostly at the most top, who can not help (because of individual and structural reasons) to reverse and exploit our inventions, findings, and our tacit knowledge, for their horrible, selfish, childish and irresponsible interests.
O. ...... Platform Cooperativism Introduction. http://platformcoop.net The seeds are being planted for a new kind of online economy. For all the wonders the Internet brings us, it is dominated by an economics of monopoly, extraction, and surveillance. Ordinary users retain little control over their personal data, and the digital workplace is creeping into every corner of workers’ lives. Online platforms often exploit and exacerbate existing inequalities in society, even while promising to be the great equalizers. Could the Internet be owned and governed differently? What if Uber drivers could set up their own platform, or if cities could control their own version of Airbnb? Can Silicon Alley do things more democratically than Silicon Valley? What are the prospects for platform cooperativism?
On November 13 and 14, the New School in New York City will host a coming-out party for the cooperative Internet, built of platforms owned and governed by the people who rely on them. The program will include discussion sessions, screenings, monologues, legal hacks, workshops, and dialogues, as well as a showcase of projects, both conceptual and actual, under the purview of celebrity judges. We’ll learn from coders and worker cooperatives, scholars and designers. Together, we’ll put their lessons to work as we work toward usable apps and structural economic change. This is your chance to get on the ground floor of the next Internet, and to help make it a reality.
Platform Cooperativism is convened by Trebor Scholz(The New School) and Nathan Schneider (University of Colorado Boulder).
Further reading:
Trebor Scholz, “Platform Cooperativism vs. the Sharing Economy” (December 5, 2014) and ”Think Outside the Boss,” Public Seminar (April 5, 2015) Nathan Schneider, “Owning Is the New Sharing,” Shareable (December 21, 2014) Janelle Orsi, Frank Pasquale, Nathan Schneider, Pia Mancini, Trebor Scholz, “5 Ways to Take Back Tech,” The Nation (May 27, 2015) Nathan Schneider, “Owning What We Share,” Pacific Standard (September 1, 2015) Sponsors & Partners Platform Cooperativism is sponsored by Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts, The Ford Foundation, The Freelancers Union, The New School University Student Senate, The Workers Lab, IG Metal, Institute for the Future, Demand Progress, Internet and Society, The Robert L. Heilbronner Center for Capitalism Studies, the University of Colorado Boulder, Democracy at Work Institute, The Digital Humanities Minor at The New School, The Lang Student Senate, and The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation NYC.
The event is presented in partnership with Carnegie Mellon School of Design, Civic Hall, Democracy Collaborative, Green Worker Cooperatives, The Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies at CUNY, the New Economy Coalition, The Robin Hood Foundation, Shareable, The United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Ver.di, The Working World, The Laura Flanders Show, and The Yale Information Society Project.
This is the fourth event in The New School’s series The Politics of Digital Culture, which included The Internet as Playground & Factory (2009) and Digital Labor (2014), among other conferences. There will be two additional summits in this series, following up on these themes, in 2016.
Twitter: @platformcoop #platformcoop
On 7 nov. 2015, at 12:52, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for this Peter. Extremely interesting analysis of past and future economic trends. In passing it answers Orsan's point about positive and hope being in the 'non-automatable part of life and human'. 'They always looked to see if knowledge could be codified, yet knew that you had to have tacit knowledge to apply and customise the codification. That tacit knowledge might itself be codified. but that too needs further tacit knowledge. and so on. It was a constant movement of codification plus the tacit, never the eradication of the tacit. The moment you lose the tacit, living labour, the codification atrophies.' (p13)
In other words the two functions are not opposed to each other, but are complementary. The key is whether they are used to exploit by extracting a profit, or to benefit society.
Anna
On 6 Nov 2015, at 14:03, Peter Waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
<nf8485_murray_gilbert_goffey.pdf>
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
Dear Orsan, I hear how confusing it is for you that there do not seem to be clear boundaries between those who are our enemies, and those who are our friends. That is why we have Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, so that we can feel the satisfaction if only once in a while, of socking it to the enemy. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it is not like that in real life. We can hate the system, but we are as much caught up in it as everybody else. We are the 'serial killers', the 'sociopaths', however much we like to identify ourselves as on the side of the 'goodies'. It is painful to feel that every time we buy something, basic necessities like soap powder, or second hand clothes from a charity shop, we are supporting the system. Everything we own, everything we eat, has an element of exploitation embedded in it, however careful we are to buy only 'ethical goods'. This presents us with an intolerable conflict, which we may try to rid ourselves of by attacking 'them', blaming 'them'. But we just end up depressed and hopeless. I don't have an answer, each one of us has to work it out for themselves. I would like to say again what I have said before, take time to look at the sky, talk to the trees, allow yourself to stay with these contradictory feelings, rather than judging them. Everything I have said here is just my personal take on how it is. If it means nothing to you, ignore it. With warm friendship, Anna Conclusion - it's pretty hopeless.
On 7 Nov 2015, at 14:38, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote:
This below paragraph is from Bogdanov's 1918 presentation:
3. This narrowness is already being felt in the very material of science, that is to say in the content of experience it organises; this is especially so in the social sciences. Thus, in the study of relations of production, bourgeois science could not grasp or to distinguish the particular higher form, of collectivist fraternal cooperation, because this form is virtually unknown to the bourgeois classes. Even more significant is the narrowness of this fundamental perspective which is evident across the whole of bourgeois science and which is due to the same position of the bourgeois classes in the social system, including their way of life. This special feature is the split between science and its real basis: socialised labour.
- Where Bogdanov fails to see and anticipate here is that first he underestimate the 'human use' or exploitation capacity, and then the expertise and technics of the ruling / capitalist classes, or bourgeoise to manipulate and assimilate knowledge from their counterparts. In real, historical experience shows that they are, in a similar way to sociopath serial killer, extremely talented to realize, find out any threat to status quo and extremely experienced / equipped in manipulating and assimilating actors behind the threat. Definitely collectivist models of production and comradely ethics, and innovation in this field is something would be the priority target for the ruling class.
O.
On 7 nov. 2015, at 15:26, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote:
Indeed, agree with Anna, it is extremely interesting analysis from Robin Murray. I think interviewers were referred by Wark's piece on Inventing Future book. The interview is a really enlightening one to me.
On the one hand, because it was in Amsterdam networked labour gathering Robin and Michel met, and there were others mentioned in the interview like Hilary Wainwright, whose specific warning I always take as a guidance, makes this input special. While reading the text I remembered something Hilary used to talked, or warned about which was avoiding to replicate the mistake of of 68 generation (or resistance to capitalism / rulers in general) in helping capitalism reinvent itself. I took that warning very serious and kept in mind. And while reading Robin's story, things get both clear and fuzzy at the same time, in terms of this mistake.
Below is again relevant event; the intro page of Platform Cooperativism conference taking place in NY next week. While looking at the Platform that is formed by the organizers, Scholz and Schinider which brings funders like Ford and Rosa Luxemburg, with unions like IG metal and Free Lancers Union, as well as participants like head of Microsoft research unit and CEO of free lancers Union co. Horowicth on the one hand and those like Stallman, Barbrook, Bauwens, Wark, Kleiner, Mayo, so on on the other.. My confusion accelerated - in relation to Hilary's warning. Can't help asking myself aren't, we, or this setting is helping out to capitalism to reinvent itself towards post-post-fordism. Even though the hope, or politics behind is that we culturally could make a good influence on the enemy, may be transform their thinking?
Hence whilst I see Wark's criticism about this point and share his worries, what appears interesting is that he is on of the most enthusiasts attendant -as Trebor he is being part of the New School cadre hosting the event. Moreover, thinking of the recent piece shared by Fabian, by Tiziana; whose Social Strike piece were at the from page of the last years' Digital Labour event, my confusion increased since these are most radical critics of enemy we face here! Same goes for the '..to our friends' comrades, who sits at board of 'Invisible Committee', to whom Wark refers critically again in his review of Inventing Future (see his: http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/06/no-futurism/) and the links they have to the Powerful, the %1 percent. As occupiers of Occupy Wall St. online accounts (Micah White took over the twitter account and Justin Tunney (trans gender anarchist tool over the OWS blog admin letter is hired by Google as 'software developer' and white founded his boutique revolution kickstart). Why all makes things become so fuzzy? Especially when realizing all these comrades and friends, somehow follow one or another version of Foucault-Deleuze-Laclau-Negri sort of radicalism, as those who are being linked to undertakings like transnational social strike.. One would normally can't stop thinking what all these mean?
What it makes me feel though, assertively speaking, that roundabout power politics never help in avoiding the mistake Hilary was remixing. Especially for those being squeezed and oppressed all the time. However such politics has been extremely helpful to those swimming in wealth and patent rights, those emerging as new victors out of the intra-class struggle marking the current crises as, Wark was rightly indicating. So that complex restructure of global oppression system not only survive but evolve in something worse each time.
I wonder, therefore, why can't we talk and act assertively, openly, and ethically correct way instead amongst the forces of resistance, and towards forces and beneficiaries of oppression? What makes it immensely difficult? While everybody knows that there is or will be any tool or form; be it 'platform', portal, coop, p2p, network, tech, automation, nor basic income, serving for emancipation if we do not transform our selves and our beings.
Robin's story of the past, tells me that we are again providing enormous amount of smart and useful analysis to stupid, narsist, psychopathological ruling cadre that possess all the means to control and oppress. The below event is not my main point of target here. And I do not accuse anyone for choosing specific politics or strategy.
But what is crystal clear is that the entire network and relationships, built between actors belong to resistances in nature and those from rulers including Harvard, MIT, Mellon, to publishers (like Semiotext working with MIT -invisible committee books distributed by), from expensive projects funded by EU and EC, Ford, Rockefellar, Google, Microsoft, so on as well as political alliances built under guidance of the Club of Rome, Club of Budapest, Month Pelerin Society, World Economic Forum, ect. ect.. There is a certain and definite repetition of the mistake Hilary Wainwright used to warn about.
It is not my intention to judge or hurt others feelings, but at this moment I do look and hope for rising up of the naive, good, and independent working people for themselves, forming their own p2p relationships, platforms, events, institutions and alliances, that would never receive any project money in return of sensitive strategic tacit knowledge. Who are trusting themselves and each other in growing hope; instead of investing hope and giving their destiny to wrong hands, or offering in exchange feeing need of income. Who grasps that there are really, socially, genetically and culturally bed people out there mostly at the most top, who can not help (because of individual and structural reasons) to reverse and exploit our inventions, findings, and our tacit knowledge, for their horrible, selfish, childish and irresponsible interests.
O. ...... Platform Cooperativism Introduction. http://platformcoop.net The seeds are being planted for a new kind of online economy. For all the wonders the Internet brings us, it is dominated by an economics of monopoly, extraction, and surveillance. Ordinary users retain little control over their personal data, and the digital workplace is creeping into every corner of workers’ lives. Online platforms often exploit and exacerbate existing inequalities in society, even while promising to be the great equalizers. Could the Internet be owned and governed differently? What if Uber drivers could set up their own platform, or if cities could control their own version of Airbnb? Can Silicon Alley do things more democratically than Silicon Valley? What are the prospects for platform cooperativism?
On November 13 and 14, the New School in New York City will host a coming-out party for the cooperative Internet, built of platforms owned and governed by the people who rely on them. The program will include discussion sessions, screenings, monologues, legal hacks, workshops, and dialogues, as well as a showcase of projects, both conceptual and actual, under the purview of celebrity judges. We’ll learn from coders and worker cooperatives, scholars and designers. Together, we’ll put their lessons to work as we work toward usable apps and structural economic change. This is your chance to get on the ground floor of the next Internet, and to help make it a reality.
Platform Cooperativism is convened by Trebor Scholz(The New School) and Nathan Schneider (University of Colorado Boulder).
Further reading:
Trebor Scholz, “Platform Cooperativism vs. the Sharing Economy” (December 5, 2014) and ”Think Outside the Boss,” Public Seminar (April 5, 2015) Nathan Schneider, “Owning Is the New Sharing,” Shareable (December 21, 2014) Janelle Orsi, Frank Pasquale, Nathan Schneider, Pia Mancini, Trebor Scholz, “5 Ways to Take Back Tech,” The Nation (May 27, 2015) Nathan Schneider, “Owning What We Share,” Pacific Standard (September 1, 2015) Sponsors & Partners Platform Cooperativism is sponsored by Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts, The Ford Foundation, The Freelancers Union, The New School University Student Senate, The Workers Lab, IG Metal, Institute for the Future, Demand Progress, Internet and Society, The Robert L. Heilbronner Center for Capitalism Studies, the University of Colorado Boulder, Democracy at Work Institute, The Digital Humanities Minor at The New School, The Lang Student Senate, and The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation NYC.
The event is presented in partnership with Carnegie Mellon School of Design, Civic Hall, Democracy Collaborative, Green Worker Cooperatives, The Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies at CUNY, the New Economy Coalition, The Robin Hood Foundation, Shareable, The United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Ver.di, The Working World, The Laura Flanders Show, and The Yale Information Society Project.
This is the fourth event in The New School’s series The Politics of Digital Culture, which included The Internet as Playground & Factory (2009) and Digital Labor (2014), among other conferences. There will be two additional summits in this series, following up on these themes, in 2016.
Twitter: @platformcoop #platformcoop
On 7 nov. 2015, at 12:52, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for this Peter. Extremely interesting analysis of past and future economic trends. In passing it answers Orsan's point about positive and hope being in the 'non-automatable part of life and human'. 'They always looked to see if knowledge could be codified, yet knew that you had to have tacit knowledge to apply and customise the codification. That tacit knowledge might itself be codified. but that too needs further tacit knowledge. and so on. It was a constant movement of codification plus the tacit, never the eradication of the tacit. The moment you lose the tacit, living labour, the codification atrophies.' (p13)
In other words the two functions are not opposed to each other, but are complementary. The key is whether they are used to exploit by extracting a profit, or to benefit society.
Anna
On 6 Nov 2015, at 14:03, Peter Waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
<nf8485_murray_gilbert_goffey.pdf>
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
Anna thanks for your warm and comradely message. Yet it feel somehow no naming mistakes or not clarifying confusing moves, with political calculations, or to be nice and sterile -from conflict- doesn't help either.
We can hate the system, but we are as much caught up in it as everybody else. We are the 'serial killers', the 'sociopaths', however much we like to identify ourselves as on the side of the 'goodies'. It is painful to feel that every time we buy something, basic necessities like soap powder, or second hand clothes from a charity shop, we are supporting the system. Everything we own, everything we eat, has an element of exploitation embedded in it, however careful we are to buy only 'ethical goods'. This presents us with an intolerable conflict, which we may try to rid ourselves of by attacking 'them', blaming 'them'. But we just end up depressed and hopeless.
About the above you are hundred percent right, may be you are also right in equalizing this 'negative' mistake done by many of us inevitably to the positive mistake (help) granted to and utilized by the rulers for evolving their system. With negative I mean not resisting or staying quite before the with and unjust while with positive; actively handing in core strategic, analytical, and practical, tacit knowledge about who resist and forms of resistance (try to transform existing reality). There is one thing can and needs to be done is to establish that these are still two different things; to be aware of. Former is automatable and letter is unatomatable. First, passive, mistake needs hope to move for emancipation, second and active mistake goes against the hope needed, willingly or unwillingly enable the assimilation of the good. Comradely wishes Anna, Orsan
I'm guessing gilbert murray should not be confused with the Robin M. that we know, Michel On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote:
Indeed, agree with Anna, it is extremely interesting analysis from Robin Murray. I think interviewers were referred by Wark's piece on Inventing Future book. The interview is a really enlightening one to me.
On the one hand, because it was in Amsterdam networked labour gathering Robin and Michel met, and there were others mentioned in the interview like Hilary Wainwright, whose specific warning I always take as a guidance, makes this input special. While reading the text I remembered something Hilary used to talked, or warned about which was avoiding to replicate the mistake of of 68 generation (or resistance to capitalism / rulers in general) in helping capitalism reinvent itself. I took that warning very serious and kept in mind. And while reading Robin's story, things get both clear and fuzzy at the same time, in terms of this mistake.
Below is again relevant event; the intro page of Platform Cooperativism conference taking place in NY next week. While looking at the Platform that is formed by the organizers, Scholz and Schinider which brings funders like Ford and Rosa Luxemburg, with unions like IG metal and Free Lancers Union, as well as participants like head of Microsoft research unit and CEO of free lancers Union co. Horowicth on the one hand and those like Stallman, Barbrook, Bauwens, Wark, Kleiner, Mayo, so on on the other.. My confusion accelerated - in relation to Hilary's warning. Can't help asking myself aren't, we, or this setting is helping out to capitalism to reinvent itself towards post-post-fordism. Even though the hope, or politics behind is that we culturally could make a good influence on the enemy, may be transform their thinking?
Hence whilst I see Wark's criticism about this point and share his worries, what appears interesting is that he is on of the most enthusiasts attendant -as Trebor he is being part of the New School cadre hosting the event. Moreover, thinking of the recent piece shared by Fabian, by Tiziana; whose Social Strike piece were at the from page of the last years' Digital Labour event, my confusion increased since these are most radical critics of enemy we face here! Same goes for the '..to our friends' comrades, who sits at board of 'Invisible Committee', to whom Wark refers critically again in his review of Inventing Future (see his: http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/06/no-futurism/) and the links they have to the Powerful, the %1 percent. As occupiers of Occupy Wall St. online accounts (Micah White took over the twitter account and Justin Tunney (trans gender anarchist tool over the OWS blog admin letter is hired by Google as 'software developer' and white founded his boutique revolution kickstart). Why all makes things become so fuzzy? Especially when realizing all these comrades and friends, somehow follow one or another version of Foucault-Deleuze-Laclau-Negri sort of radicalism, as those who are being linked to undertakings like transnational social strike.. One would normally can't stop thinking what all these mean?
What it makes me feel though, assertively speaking, that roundabout power politics never help in avoiding the mistake Hilary was remixing. Especially for those being squeezed and oppressed all the time. However such politics has been extremely helpful to those swimming in wealth and patent rights, those emerging as new victors out of the intra-class struggle marking the current crises as, Wark was rightly indicating. So that complex restructure of global oppression system not only survive but evolve in something worse each time.
I wonder, therefore, why can't we talk and act assertively, openly, and ethically correct way instead amongst the forces of resistance, and towards forces and beneficiaries of oppression? What makes it immensely difficult? While everybody knows that there is or will be any tool or form; be it 'platform', portal, coop, p2p, network, tech, automation, nor basic income, serving for emancipation if we do not transform our selves and our beings.
Robin's story of the past, tells me that we are again providing enormous amount of smart and useful analysis to stupid, narsist, psychopathological ruling cadre that possess all the means to control and oppress. The below event is not my main point of target here. And I do not accuse anyone for choosing specific politics or strategy.
But what is crystal clear is that the entire network and relationships, built between actors belong to resistances in nature and those from rulers including Harvard, MIT, Mellon, to publishers (like Semiotext working with MIT -invisible committee books distributed by), from expensive projects funded by EU and EC, Ford, Rockefellar, Google, Microsoft, so on as well as political alliances built under guidance of the Club of Rome, Club of Budapest, Month Pelerin Society, World Economic Forum, ect. ect.. There is a certain and definite repetition of the mistake Hilary Wainwright used to warn about.
It is not my intention to judge or hurt others feelings, but at this moment I do look and hope for rising up of the naive, good, and independent working people for themselves, forming their own p2p relationships, platforms, events, institutions and alliances, that would never receive any project money in return of sensitive strategic tacit knowledge. Who are trusting themselves and each other in growing hope; instead of investing hope and giving their destiny to wrong hands, or offering in exchange feeing need of income. Who grasps that there are really, socially, genetically and culturally bed people out there mostly at the most top, who can not help (because of individual and structural reasons) to reverse and exploit our inventions, findings, and our tacit knowledge, for their horrible, selfish, childish and irresponsible interests.
O. ......Platform Cooperativism Introduction. http://platformcoop.net
The seeds are being planted for a new kind of online economy. For all the wonders the Internet brings us, it is dominated by an economics of monopoly, extraction, and surveillance. Ordinary users retain little control over their personal data, and the digital workplace is creeping into every corner of workers’ lives. Online platforms often exploit and exacerbate existing inequalities in society, even while promising to be the great equalizers. Could the Internet be owned and governed differently? What if Uber drivers could set up their own platform, or if cities could control their own version of Airbnb? Can Silicon Alley do things more democratically than Silicon Valley? What are the prospects for platform cooperativism?
On November 13 and 14, the New School in New York City will host a coming-out party for the cooperative Internet, built of platforms owned and governed by the people who rely on them. The program will include discussion sessions, screenings, monologues, legal hacks, workshops, and dialogues, as well as a showcase of projects, both conceptual and actual, under the purview of celebrity judges. We’ll learn from coders and worker cooperatives, scholars and designers. Together, we’ll put their lessons to work as we work toward usable apps and structural economic change. This is your chance to get on the ground floor of the next Internet, and to help make it a reality.
Platform Cooperativism is convened by Trebor Scholz <http://twitter.com/trebors>(The New School) and Nathan Schneider <http://therowboat.com/> (University of Colorado Boulder).
Further reading:
- Trebor Scholz, “Platform Cooperativism vs. the Sharing Economy <http://tinyurl.com/oj8rna2>” (December 5, 2014) and ”Think Outside the Boss <http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/04/think-outside-the-boss/#.VUoVZEuhIds> ,” *Public Seminar (April 5, 2015)* - Nathan Schneider, “Owning Is the New Sharing <http://www.shareable.net/blog/owning-is-the-new-sharing>,” *Shareable* (December 21, 2014) - Janelle Orsi, Frank Pasquale, Nathan Schneider, Pia Mancini, Trebor Scholz, “5 Ways to Take Back Tech <http://www.thenation.com/article/5-ways-take-back-tech/>,” *The Nation* (May 27, 2015) - Nathan Schneider, “Owning What We Share <http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/the-future-of-work-owning-what-we-share> ,” *Pacific Standard *(September 1, 2015)
Sponsors & Partners
Platform Cooperativism is sponsored by Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts, The Ford Foundation, The Freelancers Union, The New School University Student Senate, The Workers Lab, IG Metal, Institute for the Future, Demand Progress, Internet and Society, The Robert L. Heilbronner Center for Capitalism Studies, the University of Colorado Boulder, Democracy at Work Institute, The Digital Humanities Minor at The New School, The Lang Student Senate, and The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation NYC.
The event is presented in partnership with Carnegie Mellon School of Design, Civic Hall, Democracy Collaborative, Green Worker Cooperatives, The Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies at CUNY, the New Economy Coalition, The Robin Hood Foundation, Shareable, The United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Ver.di, The Working World, The Laura Flanders Show, and The Yale Information Society Project.
This is the fourth event in The New School’s series The Politics of Digital Culture, which included The Internet as Playground & Factory <http://digitallabor.org/2009> (2009) and Digital Labor <http://digitallabor.org/> (2014), among other conferences. There will be two additional summits in this series, following up on these themes, in 2016.
Twitter: @platformcoop #platformcoop
On 7 nov. 2015, at 12:52, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for this Peter. Extremely interesting analysis of past and future economic trends. In passing it answers Orsan's point about positive and hope being in the 'non-automatable part of life and human'.
'They always looked to see if knowledge could be codified, yet knew that you had to have tacit knowledge to apply and customise the codification. That tacit knowledge might itself be codified. but that too needs further tacit knowledge. and so on. It was a constant movement of codification plus the tacit, never the eradication of the tacit. The moment you lose the tacit, living labour, the codification atrophies.' (p13) In other words the two functions are not opposed to each other, but are complementary. The key is whether they are used to exploit by extracting a profit, or to benefit society.
Anna
On 6 Nov 2015, at 14:03, Peter Waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
<nf8485_murray_gilbert_goffey.pdf>
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ 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/
Hi Michel, The piece was an interview with Robin Murray, posted by Peter. Confusion may be because he was talking to Jeremy Gilbert and Andrew Goffey, and names have been compressed in the title, quoted below. Robin Murray is an industrial and environmental economist. Among many other projects and roles, he was Director of Industry and Employment at the Greater London Council in the 1980s Anna
On 8 Nov 2015, at 16:40, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm guessing gilbert murray should not be confused with the Robin M. that we know,
Michel
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote: Indeed, agree with Anna, it is extremely interesting analysis from Robin Murray. I think interviewers were referred by Wark's piece on Inventing Future book. The interview is a really enlightening one to me.
On the one hand, because it was in Amsterdam networked labour gathering Robin and Michel met, and there were others mentioned in the interview like Hilary Wainwright, whose specific warning I always take as a guidance, makes this input special. While reading the text I remembered something Hilary used to talked, or warned about which was avoiding to replicate the mistake of of 68 generation (or resistance to capitalism / rulers in general) in helping capitalism reinvent itself. I took that warning very serious and kept in mind. And while reading Robin's story, things get both clear and fuzzy at the same time, in terms of this mistake.
Below is again relevant event; the intro page of Platform Cooperativism conference taking place in NY next week. While looking at the Platform that is formed by the organizers, Scholz and Schinider which brings funders like Ford and Rosa Luxemburg, with unions like IG metal and Free Lancers Union, as well as participants like head of Microsoft research unit and CEO of free lancers Union co. Horowicth on the one hand and those like Stallman, Barbrook, Bauwens, Wark, Kleiner, Mayo, so on on the other.. My confusion accelerated - in relation to Hilary's warning. Can't help asking myself aren't, we, or this setting is helping out to capitalism to reinvent itself towards post-post-fordism. Even though the hope, or politics behind is that we culturally could make a good influence on the enemy, may be transform their thinking?
Hence whilst I see Wark's criticism about this point and share his worries, what appears interesting is that he is on of the most enthusiasts attendant -as Trebor he is being part of the New School cadre hosting the event. Moreover, thinking of the recent piece shared by Fabian, by Tiziana; whose Social Strike piece were at the from page of the last years' Digital Labour event, my confusion increased since these are most radical critics of enemy we face here! Same goes for the '..to our friends' comrades, who sits at board of 'Invisible Committee', to whom Wark refers critically again in his review of Inventing Future (see his: http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/06/no-futurism/) and the links they have to the Powerful, the %1 percent. As occupiers of Occupy Wall St. online accounts (Micah White took over the twitter account and Justin Tunney (trans gender anarchist tool over the OWS blog admin letter is hired by Google as 'software developer' and white founded his boutique revolution kickstart). Why all makes things become so fuzzy? Especially when realizing all these comrades and friends, somehow follow one or another version of Foucault-Deleuze-Laclau-Negri sort of radicalism, as those who are being linked to undertakings like transnational social strike.. One would normally can't stop thinking what all these mean?
What it makes me feel though, assertively speaking, that roundabout power politics never help in avoiding the mistake Hilary was remixing. Especially for those being squeezed and oppressed all the time. However such politics has been extremely helpful to those swimming in wealth and patent rights, those emerging as new victors out of the intra-class struggle marking the current crises as, Wark was rightly indicating. So that complex restructure of global oppression system not only survive but evolve in something worse each time.
I wonder, therefore, why can't we talk and act assertively, openly, and ethically correct way instead amongst the forces of resistance, and towards forces and beneficiaries of oppression? What makes it immensely difficult? While everybody knows that there is or will be any tool or form; be it 'platform', portal, coop, p2p, network, tech, automation, nor basic income, serving for emancipation if we do not transform our selves and our beings.
Robin's story of the past, tells me that we are again providing enormous amount of smart and useful analysis to stupid, narsist, psychopathological ruling cadre that possess all the means to control and oppress. The below event is not my main point of target here. And I do not accuse anyone for choosing specific politics or strategy.
But what is crystal clear is that the entire network and relationships, built between actors belong to resistances in nature and those from rulers including Harvard, MIT, Mellon, to publishers (like Semiotext working with MIT -invisible committee books distributed by), from expensive projects funded by EU and EC, Ford, Rockefellar, Google, Microsoft, so on as well as political alliances built under guidance of the Club of Rome, Club of Budapest, Month Pelerin Society, World Economic Forum, ect. ect.. There is a certain and definite repetition of the mistake Hilary Wainwright used to warn about.
It is not my intention to judge or hurt others feelings, but at this moment I do look and hope for rising up of the naive, good, and independent working people for themselves, forming their own p2p relationships, platforms, events, institutions and alliances, that would never receive any project money in return of sensitive strategic tacit knowledge. Who are trusting themselves and each other in growing hope; instead of investing hope and giving their destiny to wrong hands, or offering in exchange feeing need of income. Who grasps that there are really, socially, genetically and culturally bed people out there mostly at the most top, who can not help (because of individual and structural reasons) to reverse and exploit our inventions, findings, and our tacit knowledge, for their horrible, selfish, childish and irresponsible interests.
O. ...... Platform Cooperativism Introduction. http://platformcoop.net The seeds are being planted for a new kind of online economy. For all the wonders the Internet brings us, it is dominated by an economics of monopoly, extraction, and surveillance. Ordinary users retain little control over their personal data, and the digital workplace is creeping into every corner of workers’ lives. Online platforms often exploit and exacerbate existing inequalities in society, even while promising to be the great equalizers. Could the Internet be owned and governed differently? What if Uber drivers could set up their own platform, or if cities could control their own version of Airbnb? Can Silicon Alley do things more democratically than Silicon Valley? What are the prospects for platform cooperativism?
On November 13 and 14, the New School in New York City will host a coming-out party for the cooperative Internet, built of platforms owned and governed by the people who rely on them. The program will include discussion sessions, screenings, monologues, legal hacks, workshops, and dialogues, as well as a showcase of projects, both conceptual and actual, under the purview of celebrity judges. We’ll learn from coders and worker cooperatives, scholars and designers. Together, we’ll put their lessons to work as we work toward usable apps and structural economic change. This is your chance to get on the ground floor of the next Internet, and to help make it a reality.
Platform Cooperativism is convened by Trebor Scholz(The New School) and Nathan Schneider (University of Colorado Boulder).
Further reading:
Trebor Scholz, “Platform Cooperativism vs. the Sharing Economy” (December 5, 2014) and ”Think Outside the Boss,” Public Seminar (April 5, 2015) Nathan Schneider, “Owning Is the New Sharing,” Shareable (December 21, 2014) Janelle Orsi, Frank Pasquale, Nathan Schneider, Pia Mancini, Trebor Scholz, “5 Ways to Take Back Tech,” The Nation (May 27, 2015) Nathan Schneider, “Owning What We Share,” Pacific Standard (September 1, 2015) Sponsors & Partners Platform Cooperativism is sponsored by Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts, The Ford Foundation, The Freelancers Union, The New School University Student Senate, The Workers Lab, IG Metal, Institute for the Future, Demand Progress, Internet and Society, The Robert L. Heilbronner Center for Capitalism Studies, the University of Colorado Boulder, Democracy at Work Institute, The Digital Humanities Minor at The New School, The Lang Student Senate, and The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation NYC.
The event is presented in partnership with Carnegie Mellon School of Design, Civic Hall, Democracy Collaborative, Green Worker Cooperatives, The Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies at CUNY, the New Economy Coalition, The Robin Hood Foundation, Shareable, The United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Ver.di, The Working World, The Laura Flanders Show, and The Yale Information Society Project.
This is the fourth event in The New School’s series The Politics of Digital Culture, which included The Internet as Playground & Factory (2009) and Digital Labor (2014), among other conferences. There will be two additional summits in this series, following up on these themes, in 2016.
Twitter: @platformcoop #platformcoop
On 7 nov. 2015, at 12:52, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for this Peter. Extremely interesting analysis of past and future economic trends. In passing it answers Orsan's point about positive and hope being in the 'non-automatable part of life and human'. 'They always looked to see if knowledge could be codified, yet knew that you had to have tacit knowledge to apply and customise the codification. That tacit knowledge might itself be codified. but that too needs further tacit knowledge. and so on. It was a constant movement of codification plus the tacit, never the eradication of the tacit. The moment you lose the tacit, living labour, the codification atrophies.' (p13)
In other words the two functions are not opposed to each other, but are complementary. The key is whether they are used to exploit by extracting a profit, or to benefit society.
Anna
On 6 Nov 2015, at 14:03, Peter Waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
<nf8485_murray_gilbert_goffey.pdf>
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ 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/
you are right, I was the confused one, based on the file name <g> I know robin well, Michel On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michel,
The piece was an interview with Robin Murray, posted by Peter. Confusion may be because he was talking to Jeremy Gilbert and Andrew Goffey, and names have been compressed in the title, quoted below.
Robin Murray is an industrial and environmental economist. Among many other projects and roles, he was Director of Industry and Employment at the Greater London Council in the 1980s
Anna
On 8 Nov 2015, at 16:40, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm guessing gilbert murray should not be confused with the Robin M. that we know,
Michel
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Orsan <[email protected]> wrote:
Indeed, agree with Anna, it is extremely interesting analysis from Robin Murray. I think interviewers were referred by Wark's piece on Inventing Future book. The interview is a really enlightening one to me.
On the one hand, because it was in Amsterdam networked labour gathering Robin and Michel met, and there were others mentioned in the interview like Hilary Wainwright, whose specific warning I always take as a guidance, makes this input special. While reading the text I remembered something Hilary used to talked, or warned about which was avoiding to replicate the mistake of of 68 generation (or resistance to capitalism / rulers in general) in helping capitalism reinvent itself. I took that warning very serious and kept in mind. And while reading Robin's story, things get both clear and fuzzy at the same time, in terms of this mistake.
Below is again relevant event; the intro page of Platform Cooperativism conference taking place in NY next week. While looking at the Platform that is formed by the organizers, Scholz and Schinider which brings funders like Ford and Rosa Luxemburg, with unions like IG metal and Free Lancers Union, as well as participants like head of Microsoft research unit and CEO of free lancers Union co. Horowicth on the one hand and those like Stallman, Barbrook, Bauwens, Wark, Kleiner, Mayo, so on on the other.. My confusion accelerated - in relation to Hilary's warning. Can't help asking myself aren't, we, or this setting is helping out to capitalism to reinvent itself towards post-post-fordism. Even though the hope, or politics behind is that we culturally could make a good influence on the enemy, may be transform their thinking?
Hence whilst I see Wark's criticism about this point and share his worries, what appears interesting is that he is on of the most enthusiasts attendant -as Trebor he is being part of the New School cadre hosting the event. Moreover, thinking of the recent piece shared by Fabian, by Tiziana; whose Social Strike piece were at the from page of the last years' Digital Labour event, my confusion increased since these are most radical critics of enemy we face here! Same goes for the '..to our friends' comrades, who sits at board of 'Invisible Committee', to whom Wark refers critically again in his review of Inventing Future (see his: http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/06/no-futurism/) and the links they have to the Powerful, the %1 percent. As occupiers of Occupy Wall St. online accounts (Micah White took over the twitter account and Justin Tunney (trans gender anarchist tool over the OWS blog admin letter is hired by Google as 'software developer' and white founded his boutique revolution kickstart). Why all makes things become so fuzzy? Especially when realizing all these comrades and friends, somehow follow one or another version of Foucault-Deleuze-Laclau-Negri sort of radicalism, as those who are being linked to undertakings like transnational social strike.. One would normally can't stop thinking what all these mean?
What it makes me feel though, assertively speaking, that roundabout power politics never help in avoiding the mistake Hilary was remixing. Especially for those being squeezed and oppressed all the time. However such politics has been extremely helpful to those swimming in wealth and patent rights, those emerging as new victors out of the intra-class struggle marking the current crises as, Wark was rightly indicating. So that complex restructure of global oppression system not only survive but evolve in something worse each time.
I wonder, therefore, why can't we talk and act assertively, openly, and ethically correct way instead amongst the forces of resistance, and towards forces and beneficiaries of oppression? What makes it immensely difficult? While everybody knows that there is or will be any tool or form; be it 'platform', portal, coop, p2p, network, tech, automation, nor basic income, serving for emancipation if we do not transform our selves and our beings.
Robin's story of the past, tells me that we are again providing enormous amount of smart and useful analysis to stupid, narsist, psychopathological ruling cadre that possess all the means to control and oppress. The below event is not my main point of target here. And I do not accuse anyone for choosing specific politics or strategy.
But what is crystal clear is that the entire network and relationships, built between actors belong to resistances in nature and those from rulers including Harvard, MIT, Mellon, to publishers (like Semiotext working with MIT -invisible committee books distributed by), from expensive projects funded by EU and EC, Ford, Rockefellar, Google, Microsoft, so on as well as political alliances built under guidance of the Club of Rome, Club of Budapest, Month Pelerin Society, World Economic Forum, ect. ect.. There is a certain and definite repetition of the mistake Hilary Wainwright used to warn about.
It is not my intention to judge or hurt others feelings, but at this moment I do look and hope for rising up of the naive, good, and independent working people for themselves, forming their own p2p relationships, platforms, events, institutions and alliances, that would never receive any project money in return of sensitive strategic tacit knowledge. Who are trusting themselves and each other in growing hope; instead of investing hope and giving their destiny to wrong hands, or offering in exchange feeing need of income. Who grasps that there are really, socially, genetically and culturally bed people out there mostly at the most top, who can not help (because of individual and structural reasons) to reverse and exploit our inventions, findings, and our tacit knowledge, for their horrible, selfish, childish and irresponsible interests.
O. ......Platform Cooperativism Introduction. http://platformcoop.net
The seeds are being planted for a new kind of online economy. For all the wonders the Internet brings us, it is dominated by an economics of monopoly, extraction, and surveillance. Ordinary users retain little control over their personal data, and the digital workplace is creeping into every corner of workers’ lives. Online platforms often exploit and exacerbate existing inequalities in society, even while promising to be the great equalizers. Could the Internet be owned and governed differently? What if Uber drivers could set up their own platform, or if cities could control their own version of Airbnb? Can Silicon Alley do things more democratically than Silicon Valley? What are the prospects for platform cooperativism?
On November 13 and 14, the New School in New York City will host a coming-out party for the cooperative Internet, built of platforms owned and governed by the people who rely on them. The program will include discussion sessions, screenings, monologues, legal hacks, workshops, and dialogues, as well as a showcase of projects, both conceptual and actual, under the purview of celebrity judges. We’ll learn from coders and worker cooperatives, scholars and designers. Together, we’ll put their lessons to work as we work toward usable apps and structural economic change. This is your chance to get on the ground floor of the next Internet, and to help make it a reality.
Platform Cooperativism is convened by Trebor Scholz <http://twitter.com/trebors>(The New School) and Nathan Schneider <http://therowboat.com/> (University of Colorado Boulder).
Further reading:
- Trebor Scholz, “Platform Cooperativism vs. the Sharing Economy <http://tinyurl.com/oj8rna2>” (December 5, 2014) and ”Think Outside the Boss <http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/04/think-outside-the-boss/#.VUoVZEuhIds> ,” *Public Seminar (April 5, 2015)* - Nathan Schneider, “Owning Is the New Sharing <http://www.shareable.net/blog/owning-is-the-new-sharing>,” *Shareable* (December 21, 2014) - Janelle Orsi, Frank Pasquale, Nathan Schneider, Pia Mancini, Trebor Scholz, “5 Ways to Take Back Tech <http://www.thenation.com/article/5-ways-take-back-tech/>,” *The Nation* (May 27, 2015) - Nathan Schneider, “Owning What We Share <http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/the-future-of-work-owning-what-we-share> ,” *Pacific Standard *(September 1, 2015)
Sponsors & Partners
Platform Cooperativism is sponsored by Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts, The Ford Foundation, The Freelancers Union, The New School University Student Senate, The Workers Lab, IG Metal, Institute for the Future, Demand Progress, Internet and Society, The Robert L. Heilbronner Center for Capitalism Studies, the University of Colorado Boulder, Democracy at Work Institute, The Digital Humanities Minor at The New School, The Lang Student Senate, and The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation NYC.
The event is presented in partnership with Carnegie Mellon School of Design, Civic Hall, Democracy Collaborative, Green Worker Cooperatives, The Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies at CUNY, the New Economy Coalition, The Robin Hood Foundation, Shareable, The United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives, Ver.di, The Working World, The Laura Flanders Show, and The Yale Information Society Project.
This is the fourth event in The New School’s series The Politics of Digital Culture, which included The Internet as Playground & Factory <http://digitallabor.org/2009> (2009) and Digital Labor <http://digitallabor.org/> (2014), among other conferences. There will be two additional summits in this series, following up on these themes, in 2016.
Twitter: @platformcoop #platformcoop
On 7 nov. 2015, at 12:52, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for this Peter. Extremely interesting analysis of past and future economic trends. In passing it answers Orsan's point about positive and hope being in the 'non-automatable part of life and human'.
'They always looked to see if knowledge could be codified, yet knew that you had to have tacit knowledge to apply and customise the codification. That tacit knowledge might itself be codified. but that too needs further tacit knowledge. and so on. It was a constant movement of codification plus the tacit, never the eradication of the tacit. The moment you lose the tacit, living labour, the codification atrophies.' (p13) In other words the two functions are not opposed to each other, but are complementary. The key is whether they are used to exploit by extracting a profit, or to benefit society.
Anna
On 6 Nov 2015, at 14:03, Peter Waterman <[email protected]> wrote:
<nf8485_murray_gilbert_goffey.pdf>
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
_______________________________________________ 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/
participants (4)
-
Anna Harris -
Michel Bauwens -
Orsan -
Orsan Senalp