[P2P-F] [Commoning] Fwd: What happened in the Eurogroup 16 February -

Tue Feb 17 15:52:18 CET 2015

Thanks a lot John, for your reply. This sounds like a great news, that
someone like you is being at the position to draf such an action plan.

You are right in terms of 'deployment force', and would be good if you see
chance that there is a space to talk about things being put forward, as in
your courses at Schumaer Collage (
https://www.schumachercollege.org.uk/courses/short-courses/towards-a-commons-based-political-economy),
and in the Commons Transition plan (
http://commonstransition.org/public-policy-for-a-social-knowledge-economy/),
or as in Pat and Lewis' book, amongst others? Probably political
composition of actors, and accesibility of the argument in society are
negative elements here, would you be able to give us an idea how big is the
chance as far as you see?

While even the mainstream negative of commons based peer production, the
so-called sharing economy*, as well as the right wing version of it 'big
society' (in both cases the society is what in real being shared by the
rulers) are the global trends, asserted by journals like economist amongst
others. One would thins this actually 'the' time to do everything to bring
the 'vision' -even if it is at the horizon- which needs concrete resource
support to become brighter, to show the potentail it bears giving a hope to
broader society(ies).

What alterantive would Syriza and we have futrher to get the urgently
needed support for, other wise?

*This was 2013:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104-internet-everything-hire-rise-sharing-economy
todat we know this trend is actualised further...

best, Orsan

On 17 February 2015 at 14:18, John <restakis at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Iannis Margaris is an advisor to Yannis Dragasakis, the Vice President
> and parjt of the Greek delegation in Brussels.
>
> My sense is that to talk of an emergency deployment force for commons
> action plans, etc. is premature. The various ministries responsible for the
> social economy, co-ops, etc. are still in the process of setting up their
> strategic plans and sorting out the mess that Syriza inherited from the
> past government when it took power. ACs far as I can see, there is no
> central capacity or structure right now to co-ordinate a commons
> "deployment force"... and I do wish we could come up with another, less
> militaristic term for this.
>
> My hope is, and I have already proposed, that a series of symposia and
> programs that involve outside supporters and contributors to various
> initiatives connected with promoting social economy and other progressive
> initiatives in Greece take place as part of an integrated social economy
> strategy. This is part of the Action Plan for Syriza that I am currently
> drafting. I do hope the ideas therein will be taken up, and if they are,
> there will be opportunity to forge the kind of international support
> projects as suggested.
>
> Best,
>
> John
>
>
> On 15-02-17 1:09 PM, Örsan Şenalp wrote:
>
>  Guessing I.M. is someone in the Greek delegation from Syriza
> government?  What would really be interesting is to hear whether they had
> any vision or plan for this moment expected to come, since this was obvious
> possibility. Since the email sounds like requesting for public support
> campaign to grow underground. This is partly similar to that we have been
> trying to think of, on these exchanges, like an emergency deployment force,
> commons action plan, so on.. the situation now shows that is rather an
> expressed need by the greek gov? It would be great to know if there is any
> preparation from syriza's side, for instance if they would support, or
> encourage, such a commons conference for instance for radical alternatives?
> Would it be an interest of them? Could anyone who received the above email
> in the first place, or close to Syriza inform us on that?
>
>
>  Ps: Cant access the original book, but from Kevin's below review of Pat
> and Mike's book, I got the idea that there is another transition
> perspective in the book:
>
>  *"Michael Lewis and Pat Conaty. The Resilience Imperative: Cooperative
> Transitions to a Steady-State Economy
> <http://www.amazon.com/The-Resilience-Imperative-Cooperative-Steady-state/dp/0865717079/> (New
> Society Publishers, 2012) 400pp.*
>
> This book starts with a macroscopic analysis of where the existing
> corporate capitalist economy goes wrong — the pathological effects of
> debt-based currency, a GDP that counts waste as “growth,” etc. — and
> proceeds to outline a detailed blueprint for a resilient alternative. This
> latter blueprint, in a series of detailed chapters, examines the authors’
> proposals for a sustainable successor society.
>
> Most of the proposals are things readers in the green, decentralist and
> alternative economics communities are probably familiar with: basic
> guaranteed incomes, barter currencies, taxation of land value and
> extraction, community land trusts, employee ownership and self-management
> as the standard business model, etc. Each of them, by itself, involves the
> kind of fundamental structural change you could spend days imagining the
> effects of. Taken together, their cumulative effect is the a model of
> society that makes a “petty bourgeois socialist” like me salivate, and
> would make P.J. Proudhon and Henry George jump up out of their graves and
> shout “Hallelujah.”
>
> In the course of each chapter, the authors examine the pathological
> effects of a particular structural privilege or monopoly — and in
> particular, it’s contribution to the cost of living. At the end of the
> chapter, they present the savings from the average family’s expenditures
> that would result from their proposed reform, along with a running total of
> the cumulative savings from previous proposals in the book. By the end of
> the book, that amounts to a huge portion of average household expenditures.
>
> I have a few quibbles; I’m an anarchist, after all. Although the
> guaranteed basic income coupled with Pigouvian taxation would be a vast
> improvement on the present system, my preference is for
>
> 1) letting the full deflationary effect of technological progress and the
> abolition of monopoly run their course (with a much bigger likely reduction
> in GDP and prices than even Lewis and Conaty envision);
>
> 2) distribute the hours of necessary labor as widely as possible through a
> drastically reduced work week; and
>
> 3) support the elderly and incapacitated, and those whose productive
> activity is difficult to monetize, through cost- and risk-pooling
> mechanisms like communal primary social units (cohousing projects, extended
> family compounds, urban communes, intentional communities, squatter
> communities, and the like).
>
> Second — a quite minor quibble — I’m skeptical about the authors’ claim
> that an end to the subsidized corporate food system would significantly
> raise household food costs. For one thing, I think a lot of food production
> would be shifted out of the cash nexus altogether, and into the informal
> and household economy. And even if it takes more labor to grow a tomato in
> a raised bed than on a mechanized plantation, I still think the total labor
> involved in growing it via soil-intensive cultivation at the actual site of
> consumption is probably less than that required to earn the money to pay
> the price of agribusiness produce (including all the embedded costs of
> long-distance distribution, high-pressure marketing, batch and queue
> processing, etc.). Ralph Borsodi’s analysis of the economics of home
> production is still valid, eighty years later.
>
> Third — much more important in my opinion — is their treatment of the idea
> of “free markets.” For example, here’s their take on the neoliberal
> policies of recent decades: “When government got out of the way and the
> free market was unleashed, once again the rich got richer and the poor got
> poorer.”
>
> No. Neoliberalism involved simply weakening some secondary restrictions
> on the state’s primary grants of privilege
> <http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/free-market-reforms-and-the-reduction-of-statism> to
> big business and the plutocracy.  These primary grants of privilege — the
> most fundamental structural feature of our economy — were left in place and
> strengthened. Without all the government-enforced or -provided subsidies,
> regulatory cartels, artificial property rights and artificial scarcities
> that now exist — subsidies to extractive industries, the state-enforced
> banking monopoly, absentee titles to vacant and unimproved land, and
> “intellectual property” [sic] among them — Fortune 500 corporations and the
> entire billionaire class would melt like garden slugs with salt on their
> backs.
>
> One thing I especially appreciate is they grok the concept of resilience
> in its essence, not just some accidental features of it. Their seven
> principles of resilience on pp. 19-20 include things like redundancy,
> modularity, and tight feedback loops that should be familiar to readers of
> John Robb or John Boyd.
>
> If you’re the kind of person who’s review in the first place, it’s a safe
> bet this is the kind of book you’d enjoy. I know I did."
>
> best, Orsan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17 February 2015 at 09:55, mp <mp at aktivix.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 17/02/15 01:24, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> > Ioannis requests to forward this message:
>>
>> !!And requests that you delete email
>> addresses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> > In case you forward this, please erase previous e-mail addresses for
>> > privacy reasons.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commoning mailing list
>> Commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de
>> http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20150217/399ca2cc/attachment.htm 