[P2P-F] Fwd: [NetworkedLabour] Corbyn

Mon Aug 3 11:45:35 CEST 2015

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jakob Rigi <rigij at ceu.edu>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] Corbyn
To: bob.haugen at gmail.com
Cc: networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org

Hi Bob.

Hi Bob,

We can reach there by *critically building* on what *we* have so far
*achieved*.

*Who is the we*? Answer: The current and in the making anti-capitalist
social movements and  individuals. Although I am very critical of Hard and
Negri’s theory of capitalism I think that we can borrow the term multitude
from them to name the we. We are the multitude: The multitude of exploited,
the repressed, and the rebellious.

*What do we have achieved so far? *We have achieved three major things:

1) We have invented a new form of political organisation, that is the
organisation through de-centered networks which is far more democratic and
horizontal compared with previous top-down organisation. One should not
counter-pose this new form of organization to face- to-face locally based
organizational form since they supplement each other. This new form of
organization should be counter-posed to old form of top-down structures of
parties and unions. So the whole problem of organising through the net
versus grass root activism is a false problem. Grass root, local and face
to face activism and organisations converge into a larger
force,-organization through horizontally connecting with each other through
the internet and other means . I know that horizontalism has been validly
critiqued but still want to keep the word horizontal to distinguish this
new form of organisation from the old party and union   form. Horizontalism
should be critiqued and modified not discarded.

2- Our second major achievement has been to overcome the identity politics.
In the wake of  crises of social democracy and the Stalinism accentuated by
1968  identity politics became hegemonic among the left. One only was
concerned with cultural-symbolic identities of local nature. One only
fought in her own local corner. Very concepts such as capitalism and
anti-capitalist struggle were dismissed as totalitarian and essentializing.
The new movement starting by Zapatisto rebellion of 1994, continuing
through Seattle 1999 and many other similar protests and peaking in 2011
completely changed this in two ways. First, it identified capitalism as the
common enemy; second, it put forward the slogan another world is possible.
The new movement combined the best aspects of the old left and identity
politics. Like the old left they defined a common enemy namely capitalism
and a common goal namely the other possible world. Like identity politics
it celebrated difference. It was a unity in difference.

3- The third achievement has been the invention of common based peer
production. Now the first two achievements being aspects of the same
movement have a common history. The history of common-based peer
production, on the other hand, only partially coincides with the history of
the two other achievements and this happens to be to source of one of our
major weaknesses.

These achievements produced in relatively short periods of time (since 1994
in the case of first two ones  an in the case of peer production since 1984
when Richard Stallman launched(GNU//GPL) are immense.

*Yet* we *suffer *from the three following *major weaknesses. *

1-*Lack of a program*. While these movements courageously launched the
slogan “ a new world is possible” activists had and still  have a very
vague notion of the contours of this possible world. Reformists took this
new world to be a return to Keynesianism , a modified capitalism; more
radical sections of the movement  of anarchist or autonomist bent  claimed
that our practice prefigures what to come  and when it comes we will know
its shape. So, their attitude was, don’t bother about it now and let’s us
only rehearse democracy and horizontalism. This theatrical practice would
necessarily fail to attract millions of ordinary people. Since these people
do not confuse theatre with life.  The irony was that the outline of this
new society was already given in peer production. The political movement
was somehow peer produced (the whole rehearsal and practices of
horizontalism and democracy was a form of peer production of politics) but
it failed to understand historical significance of peer production and to
consciously adopt it as its program for change and present it as an
alternative to capitalism.   So our first task is to craft a program with
peer production as its core. Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Kostakis should be
lauded four attempting to craft a program; but, they do not tell us how the
major means of production namely land and other strategic means of
production can be transformed into commons. I have a more detailed picture
of my own version of this program which is not possible to discuss here.
The crafting of this program must be a collective work.

2- And this brings us to the second major weakness of our movements which
is *the fear of taking power and expropriating the expropriators*. This
fear and incapacity was elevated to a virtue not only by anarchists but
also by major Marxist radical thinkers most notably Alan Badiou, John
Holloway and Antonio Negri. In spite of their differences all three argued
that we do not need to touch the state. Negri was arguing that the
multitude was creating communism independently from state and capital.
Anarchists and these thinkers shared the following proposal: We don’t care
about capital and state, we build our own life autonomously form state and
capital. But how can you do that when the earth as the principle productive
force is already owned by capitalists? Are you going to produce another
earth? Or migrate to another planet? The autonomist exodus from capital can
be only an exodus to another planet, since capital has conquered all
aspects of life on the earth.  Earth must be free from capital, but
capitalist character of the earth is guaranteed by the state. No autonomous
life is possible unless we free the earth from capital and therefore must
confront its guardian namely the state. To make a long story short the
expropriation of capitalists and abolishing of their state must be a major
plank of our program. Related to this we should present the peer to peer
form of governmentally which is already operative in both peer production
and social movements as a new form of governance. This, while not a state,
is an adequate form of governance on all levels (local, regional and
global). I call the fear of taking power and expropriating capitalists as a
Soviet syndrome. Things did not go wrong in the USSR and elsewhere because
they took the power and expropriated capitalists but for the reason that
the new power perpetuated the class rule in a new guise. So it is time to
put an end to the Soviet syndrome. And in this point our program is
different from that of Syriza’s and Corbyn’s who entertain the delusion
that they can conquer the capitalist state from the inside and then use it
for socialising means of production. So, they are “Stalinists” in a new
guise, since they are statists.  Their socialism will be inevitably a form
of capitalism or a new class rule.

3- Our third weakness which also has to do with the Soviet or more
correctly a Leninist syndrome namely the syndrome of vanguard party was our
aversion to *political organization*. The aversion of activists towards
 corrupt/authoritarian  Stalinist and social democratic parties and related
forms of unionism, and top-down structures of Trotskist and Maoists parties
which foster conformism are certainly justified. Yet, the necessity of a
political organisation like the First International is indispensible for
advancing an anti-capitalist revolutionary struggle. The main aspects of
this organisation are : a) its program; and b) its form. Its form is must
be that of peer production. It must be a distributed network of distributed
networks. In a way the movements so far have invented this form. What is
lacking is continuity in both time and space. We need an organisation which
globally unify around a common program and consciously continues to exist
in order to propagate the revolutionary program. Its permanence and its
global reach are important.   How, its different sections coordinate their
actions and relations is an open question and is up to them. Each section
can modify the general program as it fits its own conditions and interests.
Yet, the universal and long term interests of the movement as a whole must
come first.

Now let’s assume that we have the program and the organisation. Then how do
we proceed towards our final goal?

  The answer is: by participating in and being part of all small and big
progressive struggles on all corner of the planet, supporting their
progressive sides and critiquing their limitations. Propagating our program
among participants, we shall try to convince them to adopt it as their own,
to modify it and to develop it further. And we will learn from them and
accordingly change our program and organisation. Expanding peer producing
communities and supporting them will be a major aspect of our activism. But
this should be a component of a political revolutionary struggle and not
merely a form of entrepreneurial activity that aims at making profit. For
example those of us who live in the UK should support Corbyn’s candidacy
and reforms that he proposes but explain to people that these reforms
although good do not change the nature of capital and its corresponding
oligarchy. We need a social revolutions that abolishes capital and state
and establishes peer production and the will of multitude.

Now, assume that we have a global well entrenched organisation which
consists of thousands of smaller organisations which is supported by
millions of people in different countries. And assume further that in a
country where most social movements are united around our program which
enjoys the support of the majority of population there is a revolutionary
situation. Revolutionary situation is a situation in which the ruler cannot
rule as they used to rule and the ruled do not submit to their rule
anymore. In this situation mobilising the broadest number of people we will
occupy not merely parks and squares but the main sites of economic and
political power. Will abolish private property and the state and replace
them with peer to peer forms of the production of goods, meaning and social
relation.

What is the difference of this form of take-over of power with that of
Syriza’s and Corbyn’s. They do not question the premises and the legitimacy
of the capitalist state which is an oligarchical form, since, it is money
that decides. (Just look how APEC is sabotaging Obama’s nuclear treaty with
Iran by publishing ads and bribing journalists and intimidating congress
men. Obama recently confessed that he found himself powerless against the
power of money.) Then, they think that they will try to outsmart
capitalists and change this oligarchical state to a socialist one. A
project that social democracy tried and failed. The crashing of Syriza by
German bankers is a good lesson for those who think that they can outsmart
capitalists on their own playground. They can extract concessions from
capitalists in certain circumstances, and this is not a bad thing, but such
concession will never change either the nature of capitalist society or the
oligarchical state.

In our case the new power is not a power in the conventional sense but the
materialisation of the collective will of the multitude. It is a power to.
It is only against only those ex exploiters who try to revive the
conditions of exploitation. Those ex exploiters who accept the new order
will be welcomed into it as anyone else.

Here i my answer to your question.
best
Jakob

>>> Bob Haugen <bob.haugen at gmail.com> 07/31/15 4:47 PM >>>
Jakob, let's say I agree with what you wrote below (and I mostly do,
except I would not be so dismissive of other efforts), and I
definitely want to abolish capitalism. How do you think we can get
from here to there?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Jakob Rigi <rigij at ceu.edu> wrote:
> The idea that technological activism and isolated cooperatives will change
> capitalism into something different is a form of escapism. Class struggle
as
> ever is the main source of change. And the core issue of class struggle is
> state power. But the questions are these:1) What is the form of working
> class state and how does it insert power ?
> 2) What are main measures for establishing socialism?
> My answers to these questions are: The state form is peer to peer
> organisation of people that produce goods, culture and politics. There are
> coordinators but no separate bureaucratic apparatus from which stands
above
> producers. 2) The insertion of power takes place through consensual
> collective will of people: direct democracy. Its firsts tasks of working
> class' power are to abolish private property in general intellect, in
> land-nature, and in major means of production and making them commons.
> Did Syriza want to do these? Does Corbyn want to do these?
> I certainly support Corbyn and think the return of old labour, if it will
> happen, is good news. But, we do not need to forget that main problem we
> face is to abolish capitalism and not just extract concessions from it,
> though it is necessary to extract as much concession from it as we can.
> Daniel, what is your position on abolishing capitalism?
>
> Jakob
>
>
>>>> Daniel Chavez <chavez at tni.org> 07/30/15 8:28 PM >>>
>
> Dear Christian,
>
> I understand and fully agree with your points about Corbyn, the left and
the
> significance of electoral politics despite Syriza, Yugoslavia and the many
> historical defeats that Peter Waterman might refer to. But I'm afraid this
> is no longer a debate or an open exchange of ideas. Some members of this
> list already ruled that the state, socialism and the left are dead and
love
> to treat those of us who might disagree as stupids who just don't get it
> (well..., not explicitly, but close).
>
> I also agree with your characterisation of Paul Mason's approach as
> techno-determinism (with no real social agency, I would add). I haven't
read
> his book, but must confess about that I do agree with parts of his
Guardian
> article, in particular his points about the role that governments should
> play supporting the transition (something that those who praise Mason's
> views as a way to justify their dismissal of the state apparently didn't
> see...).
>
> I'm a 100% in favour of a commons-centred project, but that that doesn't
> mean that I will see my compañeros in left parties and even progressive
> governments (real or potential, as utopic as that might sound) as my
> enemies. On the contrary, I see them as essential allies in the struggle
> towards that emancipatory project.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>> El 30/7/2015, a las 15:02, Christian Fuchs <christian.fuchs at uti.at>
>> escribió:
>>
>> Does Corbyn oppose capitalism?
>> Decide yourself by listening e.g. to a short example argument by him
about
>> socialism and capitalism:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZvAvNJL-gE
>>
>> Corbyn: "'From each according to their means, to each according to their
>> needs' is surely a very sensible, very basic principle in life"...
>>
>> It is well know what kind of society Marx characterised with this
>> principle in the "Kritik des Gothaer Programms"...
>>
>> Best, Christian
>>
>>> On 7/30/15 18:33, Jakob Rigi wrote:
>>> Certainly movements and political parties should not put against each
>>> other. But questions that should be asked and answered are these: what
>>> are these parties and movements? What are their class bases? What are
>>> their goals and programs? Are they revolutionary or reformists? Are
>>> their form of organisation top-down or as horizontal as possible? I am
>>> not against reform but against reformism. If one has commons as a vision
>>> one need to relate t to all parties and movements from this angle. We
>>> need to always ask: Does this or that movement or party promote the
>>> advancement of anti-capitalist struggle? This is the main question. The
>>> question is about class struggle around private property in means of
>>> production and state and not facebook and google. What is Corbyn's
>>> attitude on state and property? Does he offer an anti-capitalist
>>> program? I don't think that anyone needs to oppose Corbyn. Ant it is
>>> certainly good if he become the leader of labour and it is good if the
>>> old labour is back to power. Do old labour and Corbyn want to abolish
>>> capitalism?
>>>
>>> >>> Christian Fuchs <christian.fuchs at uti.at> 07/30/15 6:46 PM >>>
>>> It doesn't help to set up a binary between movements and parties. On
>>> June 20, 250,000 people attended the "People's March against Austerity"
>>> in London and who was there as a speaker? Jeremy Corbyn. A couple of
>>> days later there was a solidarity protest at Trafelgar Square and guess
>>> who was speaking there... Stop the War Coalition, Campaign for Nuclear
>>> Disarmament, etc. The list of his social movement activities goes on...
>>> He is not simply an MP, but deeply connected to social movements. And
>>> social movements alone won't do...
>>>
>>> This article by Hilary Wainwright is worth reading:
>>>
>>>
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/my-support-for-jeremy-corbyn-is-about-much-more-than-reclaiming-labour/
>>>
>>> To wait that the Internet will bring about communism will not help. Paul
>>> Mason's "Postcapitalism" book is simply (again) techno-determinism (just
>>> like the one about the Arab spring as Facebook revolution that he wrote
>>> some years ago). We need not just technology, but poltical parties and
>>> social movements that struggle together for a framework that channels
>>> resources towards commons-based/commoning/etc. alternatives and supports
>>> them by progressive legislation.
>>>
>>> Arguments like "Tsipras is a traitor", "Corbyn is the next Tsipras",
>>> etc. disregard who the real enemy is.
>>>
>>> In the light of what the Tories are now doing in Britain and to so many
>>> people, who as a result will become poorer, more exploited and more
>>> excluded because society becomes more and more vicious, nasty and
>>> individualistic, it is nothing but cynical to say one should forget
>>> about Corbyn. Sitting back and waiting that the Internet downloads the
>>> revolution will not help. Setting up some online commons will not help
>>> and not be effective if there are not at the same time laws that limit
>>> the power of Facebook, Google, etc., the very companies that limit that
>>> online alternatives can be true alternatives. And for this purpose you
>>> need laws and a party in power. The same argument can be made for any
>>> realm of society, not just technology. We need alternative tech politics
>>> and policies just like we need alternative social politics and policies,
>>> alternative transport politics and policies, etc. etc. And for this a
>>> movement-party-dialectic around someone like Corbyn is much welcome,
>>> needed and desired.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is cynic
>>>
>>>
>>> The idea
>>>
>>> On 7/30/15 17:00, anna at shsh.co.uk wrote:
>>> > I think, Peter, it is not either/or. The fact that so many in the UK
>>> > have risen to the call, even though it may get stamped on by Labour
>>> > Party bureaucrats, shows there is not total apathy among the
>>> > electorate.
>>> > Were he elected, what he could achieve is a big question. But
assuredly
>>> > I would prefer to see him there than any of the others. Which since up
>>> > to now there has been no choice, is really something. So I go along
>>> > with
>>> > Bob in appreciating that Tsipras was elected, and Obama, although
>>> > little
>>> > actually changed. And I agree with him that all these little shifts
may
>>> > add up to something.
>>> >
>>> > And I agree with you that the real investment of energy should still
>>> > continue to be building the alternative.
>>> >
>>> > Anna
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 30 Jul 2015, at 16:41, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com

>>> > <mailto:peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Strange to have such a question from you, Chris, since my alternative
>>> >> to the Left would have pointed in the direction I thought you were
>>> >> yourself primarily concerned with: labour, cyberspace, the commons.
>>> >> And, for that matter, with the kind of dialogue that followed the
>>> >> immediate horror/shock/despair following the Euro Diktat in Greece.
>>> >>
>>> >> But I have no doubt also on this list said 'the left is dead: long
>>> >> live global social emancipation'. Or words to this effect.
>>> >>
>>> >> For me the left, or The Left, is a category belonging to the period
of
>>> >> and following the French political and the English industrial ... err
>>> >> ... revolutions.
>>> >>
>>> >> Strange also, to have such a question at this time - that of the
>>> >> attempt in Greece to resist a totalitarian capitalist assault with
the
>>> >> institutions and process of liberal capitalist democracy.
>>> >>
>>> >> Pointing, I think, firmly in this alternative direction would be Paul
>>> >> Mason:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't recall whether he says in his article anything positive about
>>> >> (ex-) Social Democratic parties, elections, parliamentary democracy,
>>> >> the liberal-democratic (less and less) state. Nor in his book, which
I
>>> >> have not yet read. But his priorities seem to lie elsewhere, with the
>>> >> three keywords I started with, and which I will now capitalise for
>>> >> your reading pleasure: Labour, Cyberspace, the Commons.
>>> >>
>>> >> But do feel free to set out your own understanding of what is left,
or
>>> >> 'What's Left?'. Or, for that matter - the Chernyshevsky Question:
What
>>> >> is to be Done?
>>> >>
>>> >> Best,
>>> >>
>>> >> PeterW
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Christian Fuchs
>>> >> <christian.fuchs at uti.at <mailto:christian.fuchs at uti.at>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> If in your view, Peter, Corbyn as Labour's leader is no hope for
>>> >> the British Left and it is in your view a waste of time to support
>>> >> him, can you then please tell us what in your view is the
>>> >> practical hope for the British Left?
>>> >>
>>> >> Christian
>>> >>
>>> >> On 7/30/15 10:22, peter waterman wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Anna:
>>> >>
>>> >> To say that Corbyn is backed by the unions and the CPGB is no
>>> >> necessary
>>> >> recommendation.
>>> >>
>>> >> The long, sad story of the Labour Left is either incorporation or
>>> >> isolation, or the one followed by the other.
>>> >>
>>> >> And, whilst I would be happy to see Corbyn elected, and eventually
>>> >> become CEO of the GB, of NATO, of the EU, of Peace-Keeping
>>> >> Troops (here,
>>> >> there and everywhere), and to even more eventually become a UN
>>> >> Celeb,
>>> >> well, even if I was unfortunate enough to be in the UK, I would be
>>> >> putting my energy and hopes elsewhere.
>>> >>
>>> >> Best,
>>> >>
>>> >> P
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:42 AM, <anna at shsh.co.uk
>>> >> <mailto:anna at shsh.co.uk>
>>> >> <mailto:anna at shsh.co.uk <mailto:anna at shsh.co.uk>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Sounds like it might be worth joining the Labour Party to
>>> >> support
>>> >> Corbyn, supported by unions and Communist party!
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/29/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-campaign-momentum?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
>>> >>
>>> >> Anna
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> *Recent publications*
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement:
>>> >> Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist.
>>> >> http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism
>>> >> _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ (Free).2. 2014.
>>> >> Interface Journal
>>> >> Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social Movement
>>> >> Internationalisms'.
>>> >> (Free).3. 2014. with Laurence Cox, ‘Movement Internationalism/s’,
>>> >> Interface: a Journal for and about Social Movements.
>>> >> (Editorial), Vol. 6
>>> >> (2), pp. 1–12.4. 2014. ‘The International Labour Movement in,
>>> >> Against
>>> >> and Beyond, the Globalized and Informatized Cage of Capitalism and
>>> >> Bureaucracy. (Interview). Interface: a Journal for and about
>>> >> Social
>>> >> Movements. Vol. 6 (2), pp. 35-58.5. 2014. 'The Networked
>>> >> Internationalism of Labour's Others', in Jai Sen (ed), Peter
>>> >> Waterman
>>> >> (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: Struggles for Other
>>> >> Worlds (Part
>>> >> I). (10 Euros).6. 2015. Waterman, Peter. ‘Beyond Labourism,
>>> >> Development
>>> >> and Decent Work’.
>>> >> <https://escarpmentpress.org/globallabour/article/download/2338/2433>
>>> >> Global Labour Journal, 2015, 6(2), pp. 246-50.
>>> >>
>>> >> *More publications, click [////]*
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NetworkedLabour mailing list
>>> >> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>>> >> <mailto:NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org>
>>> >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NetworkedLabour mailing list
>>> >> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>>> >> <mailto:NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org>
>>> >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> *Recent publications*
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement:
>>> >> Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist.
>>> >> http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism
>>> >> _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ (Free).2. 2014. Interface
>>> >> Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social Movement
>>> >> Internationalisms'. (Free).3. 2014. with Laurence Cox, ‘Movement
>>> >> Internationalism/s’, Interface: a Journal for and about Social
>>> >> Movements. (Editorial), Vol. 6 (2), pp. 1–12.4. 2014. ‘The
>>> >> International Labour Movement in, Against and Beyond, the Globalized
>>> >> and Informatized Cage of Capitalism and Bureaucracy. (Interview).
>>> >> Interface: a Journal for and about Social Movements. Vol. 6 (2), pp.
>>> >> 35-58.5. 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others',
in
>>> >> Jai Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements:
>>> >> Struggles for Other Worlds (Part I). (10 Euros).6. 2015. Waterman,
>>> >> Peter. ‘Beyond Labourism, Development and Decent Work’.
>>> >> <https://escarpmentpress.org/globallabour/article/download/2338/2433>
>>> >> Global Labour Journal, 2015, 6(2), pp. 246-50.
>>> >>
>>> >> *More publications, click [////]*
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NetworkedLabour mailing list
>>> >> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>>> >> <mailto:NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org>
>>> >> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetworkedLabour mailing list
>>> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetworkedLabour mailing list
>> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
> _______________________________________________
> NetworkedLabour mailing list
> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetworkedLabour mailing list
> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>
_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour

_______________________________________________
NetworkedLabour mailing list
NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20150803/9f813d67/attachment-0001.htm 