Re: [P2P-F] NEW FROM VERSO: INVENTING THE FUTURE BY NICK SRNICEK AND ALEX WILLIAMS
Good question Ursula, and not one I can answer fully. It is the term the authors use on the book cover. They say: "FULL AUTOMATION With automation.......machines can increasingly produce all necessary goods and services, while also releasing humanity from the effort of producing them. For this reason, we argue that the tendencies towards automation and the replacement of human labour should be enthusiastically accelerated and targeted as a political project of the left. This is a project that takes an existing capitalist tendency and seeks to push it beyond the acceptable parameters of capitalist social relations." (P109) A vision of a post work society where people's time is free to use as they wish is the basis for this demand. If this becomes a project of the left, hopefully there is more possibility to influence and guide this tendency so that it serves all of humanity rather than just the few. Anna On 2 Nov 2015, at 10:00, Ursula Huws <[email protected]> wrote:
What do you mean by ‘full automation’? Ursula
From: Anna Harris [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 November 2015 09:19 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Ursula Huws <[email protected]> Subject: NEW FROM VERSO: INVENTING THE FUTURE BY NICK SRNICEK AND ALEX WILLIAMS
This book offers the framework of building a campaign strategy around the demand for full automation and a basic income for all. This is not a short term demand but a vision of what can be achieved if labour groups come together with academics and supporters to design the future.
Personally I believe they have drawn the supporting network too narrowly. But that only makes the case for this campaign even more strongly. I wrote some time ago:
BIG (basic income guaranteed) may be revolutionary, but it does not need the economic system to change drastically in order to be introduced. In that sense it is reformist, although the effects are revolutionary. The big advantages are that 1. it can be introduced without massive changes to the economic system. 2. It is a very simple idea which can be appreciated by people without much knowledge of the economy. 3. It has been tried in pilot experiments, and found to be successful in stimulating economic activity. (Brazil) 4. Many economists agree (James Robertson, Jeremy Rifkin, Edward Snowden, Richard Swift) that with technology replacing many jobs that previously required human labour, BIG of some sort is necessary. 5. Naomi Klein highlights it in her latest book This Changes Everything, as one of the game changing battles that 'don't merely aim to change laws, but changes patterns of thought.'(p 641)
The authors are coming to Leeds for an open discussion on Nov 14.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1624336424483090/
I believe that this campaign could appeal widely across all political spectrums, and would welcome more discussion on this list.
Anna
this hypothesis weakens the book in my opinion, it is not necessary to posit this to be for the basic income ... Michel On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Good question Ursula, and not one I can answer fully. It is the term the authors use on the book cover. They say: "FULL AUTOMATION With automation.......machines can increasingly produce all necessary goods and services, while also releasing humanity from the effort of producing them. For this reason, we argue that the tendencies towards automation and the replacement of human labour should be enthusiastically accelerated and targeted as a political project of the left. This is a project that takes an existing capitalist tendency and seeks to push it beyond the acceptable parameters of capitalist social relations." (P109)
A vision of a post work society where people's time is free to use as they wish is the basis for this demand. If this becomes a project of the left, hopefully there is more possibility to influence and guide this tendency so that it serves all of humanity rather than just the few.
Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 10:00, Ursula Huws <[email protected]> wrote:
What do you mean by ‘full automation’? Ursula
*From:* Anna Harris [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *Sent:* 02 November 2015 09:19 *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] *Cc:* Ursula Huws <[email protected]> *Subject:* NEW FROM VERSO: INVENTING THE FUTURE BY NICK SRNICEK AND ALEX WILLIAMS
This book offers the framework of building a campaign strategy around the demand for full automation and a basic income for all. This is not a short term demand but a vision of what can be achieved if labour groups come together with academics and supporters to design the future.
Personally I believe they have drawn the supporting network too narrowly. But that only makes the case for this campaign even more strongly. I wrote some time ago:
BIG (basic income guaranteed) may be revolutionary, but it does not need the economic system to change drastically in order to be introduced. In that sense it is reformist, although the effects are revolutionary. The big advantages are that 1. it can be introduced without massive changes to the economic system. 2. It is a very simple idea which can be appreciated by people without much knowledge of the economy. 3. It has been tried in pilot experiments, and found to be successful in stimulating economic activity. (Brazil) 4. Many economists agree (James Robertson, Jeremy Rifkin, Edward Snowden, Richard Swift) that with technology replacing many jobs that previously required human labour, BIG of some sort is necessary. 5. Naomi Klein highlights it in her latest book This Changes Everything, as one of the game changing battles that 'don't merely aim to change laws, but changes patterns of thought.'(p 641)
The authors are coming to Leeds for an open discussion on Nov 14.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1624336424483090/
I believe that this campaign could appeal widely across all political spectrums, and would welcome more discussion on this list.
Anna
_______________________________________________ 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/
I agree with you Michel, it is not necessary to the argument for basic income. But it enables us to see the necessity for the BI rather than seeing it as just a utopian dream. The lack of jobs, and the continued demand for people to be in work, makes no sense unless you see it in the background of developing automation which is replacing labour, and which is traditionally resisted by labour. It is this attitude which needs to open to seeing automation as serving our interests rather than being the enemy which deprives us of work. Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 12:05, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
this hypothesis weakens the book in my opinion, it is not necessary to posit this to be for the basic income ...
Michel
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote: Good question Ursula, and not one I can answer fully. It is the term the authors use on the book cover. They say: "FULL AUTOMATION With automation.......machines can increasingly produce all necessary goods and services, while also releasing humanity from the effort of producing them. For this reason, we argue that the tendencies towards automation and the replacement of human labour should be enthusiastically accelerated and targeted as a political project of the left. This is a project that takes an existing capitalist tendency and seeks to push it beyond the acceptable parameters of capitalist social relations." (P109)
A vision of a post work society where people's time is free to use as they wish is the basis for this demand. If this becomes a project of the left, hopefully there is more possibility to influence and guide this tendency so that it serves all of humanity rather than just the few.
Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 10:00, Ursula Huws <[email protected]> wrote:
What do you mean by ‘full automation’? Ursula
From: Anna Harris [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 November 2015 09:19 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Ursula Huws <[email protected]> Subject: NEW FROM VERSO: INVENTING THE FUTURE BY NICK SRNICEK AND ALEX WILLIAMS
This book offers the framework of building a campaign strategy around the demand for full automation and a basic income for all. This is not a short term demand but a vision of what can be achieved if labour groups come together with academics and supporters to design the future.
Personally I believe they have drawn the supporting network too narrowly. But that only makes the case for this campaign even more strongly. I wrote some time ago:
BIG (basic income guaranteed) may be revolutionary, but it does not need the economic system to change drastically in order to be introduced. In that sense it is reformist, although the effects are revolutionary. The big advantages are that 1. it can be introduced without massive changes to the economic system. 2. It is a very simple idea which can be appreciated by people without much knowledge of the economy. 3. It has been tried in pilot experiments, and found to be successful in stimulating economic activity. (Brazil) 4. Many economists agree (James Robertson, Jeremy Rifkin, Edward Snowden, Richard Swift) that with technology replacing many jobs that previously required human labour, BIG of some sort is necessary. 5. Naomi Klein highlights it in her latest book This Changes Everything, as one of the game changing battles that 'don't merely aim to change laws, but changes patterns of thought.'(p 641)
The authors are coming to Leeds for an open discussion on Nov 14.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1624336424483090/
I believe that this campaign could appeal widely across all political spectrums, and would welcome more discussion on this list.
Anna
_______________________________________________ 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/
agreed, but I think there is one thing that proponents underestimate, as Polanyi showed, making labour into a commodity was really central for capitalism, and the basic income would profoundly undo that, in fact making labour into a commons, it is worth fighting for, but let's not imagine it will be easy as this is in fact a very radical proposal, which will overturn a lot of common logics .. for example, it is likely that intellectual jobs will be paid less, physical labor more, as no one will want to do them, Michel On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree with you Michel, it is not necessary to the argument for basic income. But it enables us to see the *necessity* for the BI rather than seeing it as just a utopian dream. The lack of jobs, and the continued demand for people to be in work, makes no sense unless you see it in the background of developing automation which is replacing labour, and which is traditionally resisted by labour. It is this attitude which needs to open to seeing automation as serving our interests rather than being the enemy which deprives us of work.
Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 12:05, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
this hypothesis weakens the book in my opinion, it is not necessary to posit this to be for the basic income ...
Michel
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Good question Ursula, and not one I can answer fully. It is the term the authors use on the book cover. They say: "FULL AUTOMATION With automation.......machines can increasingly produce all necessary goods and services, while also releasing humanity from the effort of producing them. For this reason, we argue that the tendencies towards automation and the replacement of human labour should be enthusiastically accelerated and targeted as a political project of the left. This is a project that takes an existing capitalist tendency and seeks to push it beyond the acceptable parameters of capitalist social relations." (P109)
A vision of a post work society where people's time is free to use as they wish is the basis for this demand. If this becomes a project of the left, hopefully there is more possibility to influence and guide this tendency so that it serves all of humanity rather than just the few.
Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 10:00, Ursula Huws <[email protected]> wrote:
What do you mean by ‘full automation’? Ursula
*From:* Anna Harris [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *Sent:* 02 November 2015 09:19 *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] *Cc:* Ursula Huws <[email protected]> *Subject:* NEW FROM VERSO: INVENTING THE FUTURE BY NICK SRNICEK AND ALEX WILLIAMS
This book offers the framework of building a campaign strategy around the demand for full automation and a basic income for all. This is not a short term demand but a vision of what can be achieved if labour groups come together with academics and supporters to design the future.
Personally I believe they have drawn the supporting network too narrowly. But that only makes the case for this campaign even more strongly. I wrote some time ago:
BIG (basic income guaranteed) may be revolutionary, but it does not need the economic system to change drastically in order to be introduced. In that sense it is reformist, although the effects are revolutionary. The big advantages are that 1. it can be introduced without massive changes to the economic system. 2. It is a very simple idea which can be appreciated by people without much knowledge of the economy. 3. It has been tried in pilot experiments, and found to be successful in stimulating economic activity. (Brazil) 4. Many economists agree (James Robertson, Jeremy Rifkin, Edward Snowden, Richard Swift) that with technology replacing many jobs that previously required human labour, BIG of some sort is necessary. 5. Naomi Klein highlights it in her latest book This Changes Everything, as one of the game changing battles that 'don't merely aim to change laws, but changes patterns of thought.'(p 641)
The authors are coming to Leeds for an open discussion on Nov 14.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1624336424483090/
I believe that this campaign could appeal widely across all political spectrums, and would welcome more discussion on this list.
Anna
_______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
I think the below is a sort of myth, which reflects a version of ruling class norm, normised in time -think of Gandi's point- otherwise most people, peer producers, hackers so on, does and do enjoy doing physical work even better if not equally.
for example, it is likely that intellectual jobs will be paid less, physical labor more, as no one will want to do them,
Best, Orsan
it depends ... I have different experiences in communal living and recently saw it in a famous alternative community in bcn, where no one wanted to clean or repair the toilets, I am not very convinced that all jobs will find takers, once people have their necessities covered, of course, there may be other solutions that 'jobs' .. Michel On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Orsan Senalp <[email protected]> wrote:
I think the below is a sort of myth, which reflects a version of ruling class norm, normised in time -think of Gandi's point- otherwise most people, peer producers, hackers so on, does and do enjoy doing physical work even better if not equally.
for example, it is likely that intellectual jobs will be paid less, physical labor more, as no one will want to do them,
Best, Orsan
-- 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/
This is not being presented as an easy option. Far from it, as you rightly point out Michel, this will overturn a lot of common logics, particularly the logic of Neoliberalism. Part of that process is to unbind the rigid link between labour and income, by making work voluntary. "The result would be that hazardous, boring, and unattractive work would have to be better paid, while more rewarding, invigorating and attractive work, would be less well paid. In other words the nature of the work would become a measure of its value, not merely its profitability". (P121) This is no easy task, and the bulk of the book is given over to designing the strategy that would be required to bring this about. Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 12:36, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
agreed,
but I think there is one thing that proponents underestimate,
as Polanyi showed, making labour into a commodity was really central for capitalism, and the basic income would profoundly undo that, in fact making labour into a commons,
it is worth fighting for, but let's not imagine it will be easy as this is in fact a very radical proposal, which will overturn a lot of common logics .. for example, it is likely that intellectual jobs will be paid less, physical labor more, as no one will want to do them,
Michel
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote: I agree with you Michel, it is not necessary to the argument for basic income. But it enables us to see the necessity for the BI rather than seeing it as just a utopian dream. The lack of jobs, and the continued demand for people to be in work, makes no sense unless you see it in the background of developing automation which is replacing labour, and which is traditionally resisted by labour. It is this attitude which needs to open to seeing automation as serving our interests rather than being the enemy which deprives us of work.
Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 12:05, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
this hypothesis weakens the book in my opinion, it is not necessary to posit this to be for the basic income ...
Michel
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote: Good question Ursula, and not one I can answer fully. It is the term the authors use on the book cover. They say: "FULL AUTOMATION With automation.......machines can increasingly produce all necessary goods and services, while also releasing humanity from the effort of producing them. For this reason, we argue that the tendencies towards automation and the replacement of human labour should be enthusiastically accelerated and targeted as a political project of the left. This is a project that takes an existing capitalist tendency and seeks to push it beyond the acceptable parameters of capitalist social relations." (P109)
A vision of a post work society where people's time is free to use as they wish is the basis for this demand. If this becomes a project of the left, hopefully there is more possibility to influence and guide this tendency so that it serves all of humanity rather than just the few.
Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 10:00, Ursula Huws <[email protected]> wrote:
What do you mean by ‘full automation’? Ursula
From: Anna Harris [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 November 2015 09:19 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Ursula Huws <[email protected]> Subject: NEW FROM VERSO: INVENTING THE FUTURE BY NICK SRNICEK AND ALEX WILLIAMS
This book offers the framework of building a campaign strategy around the demand for full automation and a basic income for all. This is not a short term demand but a vision of what can be achieved if labour groups come together with academics and supporters to design the future.
Personally I believe they have drawn the supporting network too narrowly. But that only makes the case for this campaign even more strongly. I wrote some time ago:
BIG (basic income guaranteed) may be revolutionary, but it does not need the economic system to change drastically in order to be introduced. In that sense it is reformist, although the effects are revolutionary. The big advantages are that 1. it can be introduced without massive changes to the economic system. 2. It is a very simple idea which can be appreciated by people without much knowledge of the economy. 3. It has been tried in pilot experiments, and found to be successful in stimulating economic activity. (Brazil) 4. Many economists agree (James Robertson, Jeremy Rifkin, Edward Snowden, Richard Swift) that with technology replacing many jobs that previously required human labour, BIG of some sort is necessary. 5. Naomi Klein highlights it in her latest book This Changes Everything, as one of the game changing battles that 'don't merely aim to change laws, but changes patterns of thought.'(p 641)
The authors are coming to Leeds for an open discussion on Nov 14.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1624336424483090/
I believe that this campaign could appeal widely across all political spectrums, and would welcome more discussion on this list.
Anna
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- 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/
That citation is exactly what I wanted to say. My worry is that the basic income appears as some kind of mantra and magic wand; as we don't have it and in the meantime, there is a lot of other options that need to be considered, as precarity is not waiting <g> I support the basic income, though, despite my misgivings, I'm quite hot myself on the transition income proposal of christian arnsperger, as an intermediary step, Michel On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
This is not being presented as an easy option. Far from it, as you rightly point out Michel, this will overturn a lot of common logics, particularly the logic of Neoliberalism. Part of that process is to unbind the rigid link between labour and income, by making work voluntary. "The result would be that hazardous, boring, and unattractive work would have to be better paid, while more rewarding, invigorating and attractive work, would be less well paid. In other words the *nature* of the work would become a measure of its value, not merely its *profitability*". (P121)
This is no easy task, and the bulk of the book is given over to designing the strategy that would be required to bring this about.
Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 12:36, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
agreed,
but I think there is one thing that proponents underestimate,
as Polanyi showed, making labour into a commodity was really central for capitalism, and the basic income would profoundly undo that, in fact making labour into a commons,
it is worth fighting for, but let's not imagine it will be easy as this is in fact a very radical proposal, which will overturn a lot of common logics .. for example, it is likely that intellectual jobs will be paid less, physical labor more, as no one will want to do them,
Michel
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree with you Michel, it is not necessary to the argument for basic income. But it enables us to see the *necessity* for the BI rather than seeing it as just a utopian dream. The lack of jobs, and the continued demand for people to be in work, makes no sense unless you see it in the background of developing automation which is replacing labour, and which is traditionally resisted by labour. It is this attitude which needs to open to seeing automation as serving our interests rather than being the enemy which deprives us of work.
Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 12:05, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
this hypothesis weakens the book in my opinion, it is not necessary to posit this to be for the basic income ...
Michel
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Anna Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
Good question Ursula, and not one I can answer fully. It is the term the authors use on the book cover. They say: "FULL AUTOMATION With automation.......machines can increasingly produce all necessary goods and services, while also releasing humanity from the effort of producing them. For this reason, we argue that the tendencies towards automation and the replacement of human labour should be enthusiastically accelerated and targeted as a political project of the left. This is a project that takes an existing capitalist tendency and seeks to push it beyond the acceptable parameters of capitalist social relations." (P109)
A vision of a post work society where people's time is free to use as they wish is the basis for this demand. If this becomes a project of the left, hopefully there is more possibility to influence and guide this tendency so that it serves all of humanity rather than just the few.
Anna
On 2 Nov 2015, at 10:00, Ursula Huws <[email protected]> wrote:
What do you mean by ‘full automation’? Ursula
*From:* Anna Harris [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *Sent:* 02 November 2015 09:19 *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] *Cc:* Ursula Huws <[email protected]> *Subject:* NEW FROM VERSO: INVENTING THE FUTURE BY NICK SRNICEK AND ALEX WILLIAMS
This book offers the framework of building a campaign strategy around the demand for full automation and a basic income for all. This is not a short term demand but a vision of what can be achieved if labour groups come together with academics and supporters to design the future.
Personally I believe they have drawn the supporting network too narrowly. But that only makes the case for this campaign even more strongly. I wrote some time ago:
BIG (basic income guaranteed) may be revolutionary, but it does not need the economic system to change drastically in order to be introduced. In that sense it is reformist, although the effects are revolutionary. The big advantages are that 1. it can be introduced without massive changes to the economic system. 2. It is a very simple idea which can be appreciated by people without much knowledge of the economy. 3. It has been tried in pilot experiments, and found to be successful in stimulating economic activity. (Brazil) 4. Many economists agree (James Robertson, Jeremy Rifkin, Edward Snowden, Richard Swift) that with technology replacing many jobs that previously required human labour, BIG of some sort is necessary. 5. Naomi Klein highlights it in her latest book This Changes Everything, as one of the game changing battles that 'don't merely aim to change laws, but changes patterns of thought.'(p 641)
The authors are coming to Leeds for an open discussion on Nov 14.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1624336424483090/
I believe that this campaign could appeal widely across all political spectrums, and would welcome more discussion on this list.
Anna
_______________________________________________ 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/
-- 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 (3)
-
Anna Harris -
Michel Bauwens -
Orsan Senalp