[P2P-F] An Open Letter to the Fabian Society (was: Re: [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership)

• Previous message: [P2P-F] An Open Letter to the Fabian Society (was: Re: [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership)
• Next message: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] An Open Letter to the Fabian Society (was: Re: New models of leadership)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Some emails did not go through networked labour list, so re-added it to cc, and copying last reply from Michel below and reply to both Pat, and Michel here. 

I don't think that I reproduce 250 battle between reformism and revolutionism. Especially did not even mention anything about the proposed radical reforms, actually as you say, as other rEvolutionaries I do support the spirit, content, and find some reforms innovative and even radical. Yet as for my critic, there is something beyond these, it is about the form of politics, funding, framing, agenda setting and alliance building aspects are extremely problematic. 

I think your approach is different, in a sense that you have had something new to say, (p2p / commons) and your position had been more of an autonomous and independent one, this had given you chance to make maneuvers and hope to make change, in case you moved your cards strategically and pragmatically. 

But reading the reports of David Boiler and Pat from the events you have organized, on cooperative economy, the participant's configuration, the funders behind, it became crystal clear to me towards where the main course had been steered. The emphasis made on 'Real Economy', 'new economy', the enemy is defined as extractive corporations and the Wall Street regime; these are common enemies I would agree for the left and progressives, but also 'real economy' actors and industrialists. Putting the emphasis on 'public', reformation of existing structures, had been not for nothing futile and it serves for certain purpose, I would argue. There is a certain hierarch in the reports from less radical to more utopic, meaning those real radical alternatives seems suppressed as less realistic in both reports where there appears like a agreement coming on the realism of reforming the existing structures.. But how this will be without being coopted is not mentioned at all. Who will pursue these changes, in an chaotic atmosphere of today. Only realistic outcome from such movement building strategy would be a network with pure reformist character that has a radical make up. With this I don't even mean revolutionary radicalism, and with revolution I mean only really emancipatory imagination. Not armed terror, or anything like that; but perspective of taking land, money, labour, and data out of market and state becomes marginal. In commons discourse you have been promoting had been including such post-capitalist vision, at least as an outcome of a phase transition, you have been saying openly that it is too early for radical break through. This can be argued. I am sure these aspects, new economics foundation and Pat has been critical about. 



> On 3 aug. 2016, at 17:55, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Örsan Şenalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com> wrote:
> As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of clarity
> of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a
> weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it;
> namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I
> would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of
> full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of
> people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians.
Dear Orsan,

it seems we are re-doing here the 250 year old battle between revoluton and reformism, and that your critique of Pat, and sometimes of me, is that we are reformists.

Personally, I don't see myself as a reformism in the sense it was defined,

but, I do consider this:

* the record of revolution is abysmal, with at least 100 million death when the revolutionaries were in power (the soviet one, but the earlier french was almost as dramatic); and an untold number during the ongoing defeats of those that did not succeed

* the record of social democracy in its golden age was extraordinary, at least for the western working class, but I would argue, if you look at national liberation, that was also a fundamental advance, not to mention civil, gender rights etc ..

* but even the revolutionaries who were combatting reformism, were not against reforms

* now, there is a lot of evidence of social unrest, there were social and political and electoral s shifts that brought progressives to power, but is there any evidence that global south workers for example are revolutionary .. I would argue, they are not, even as they fight radically for social and labor improvements

People like Pat Conaty , and myself, want post-capitalist structural reforms, and a phase transition, but at the same time, we are not opposed to reforms and to any social advances that social movements can win

we want full and real democratization, an end to extractive regimes and practices

yet, you continuously paint us as enemies it seems, and use a sliding scale that always ends up with the enemies of the people

it always seems that your real enemy is not the 1%, but those of the 99% who do not share your views ..

I see pat conaty, john restakis and others in the network for a cooperative commonwealth and synergia, as people with a lifelong record of fighting for the betterment of their fellow humans

they want reforms, but they are not reformists,

Michel


> On 3 aug. 2016, at 13:12, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> 
> New economy has many interpretations as you know. Is not Corbyn pursuing this in some version? I support his efforts and the paper I sent you about co-operative economics suggested some programme elements that I think are relevant in relation to practical land reform and practical money reform. You mention Bertrand Russell and his arguments with the Webbs and the Fabians. Russell went to jail for his opposition to the World War 1. That is why he supported guild socialism in his Roads to Freedom after the slaughter of World War 1. I think Russell views were sound.
> 
> Pat
> 
>> On 3 Aug 2016, at 11:57, Orsan Senalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Pat, 
>> 
>> The relevance of you not being a member but sypatisan can be minor. More important is the relevance of New Economy Fuondation, New Economy Coalition, The Next System alliances and all these relations to Fabians, democratic socialists and liberal global Capital is what matters. A google search for "new economy" "fabian society" displays this context. And further searched and Network mapping documents funding-politics relationships. So you can tell us better what is then the relevance of all these to critics of Crbyn and Commons vision, defended by those like Michel. 
>> 
>> Best, 
>> Orsan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 03 Aug 2016, at 12:43, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Orsan
>>> 
>>> Not sure the relevance as I am not a member of the Fabians and never have been.
>>> 
>>> As I said, you asked for my view and personally I have found the guild socialists
>>> moving in the right direction. The paper I sent you sets this out and reasons for reviving the
>>> concept and practices of co-operative economic democracy and in particular a focus on reversing enclosure
>>> and overcoming wage labour and the slavery of interest based debt money.
>>> 
>>> Pat
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 3 Aug 2016, at 11:23, Örsan Şenalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your considered answer Pat,
>>>> 
>>>> In my reply I am not addressing you as an individual; but since I
>>>> believe you play an important political role in the global network of
>>>> Fabian Society, namely as coordinator of “New Economy Foundation” I do
>>>> address with this email to the society you represent. So, this is to
>>>> read as an open letter to the Fabians as a whole. I hope you would be
>>>> so kind to pass my message to other Fabians, who are not in the
>>>> addressed lists, hence who may be able to reads it.
>>>> 
>>>> First of all, I like the reader to read the basic information and fact
>>>> of this influential society here:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
>>>> 
>>>> and from their own website here: http://www.fabians.org.uk/
>>>> 
>>>> Your writings are collected there by Socioeco:
>>>> http://www.socioeco.org/bdf_auteur-204_en.html
>>>> 
>>>> And this is your article for Fabian Society Review
>>>> http://www.socioeco.org/bdf_fiche-document-3842_en.html
>>>> 
>>>> At the bottom of the website there are links saying that socioeco.org
>>>> is part of Ripess Europe and Ripess International - which is
>>>> represented by Jason Nardi. and Restakis is the part of the Synergia
>>>> alliance around the same networks linked to Fabians; active in WSF, as
>>>> well as other left wing networks at structural level.
>>>> 
>>>> Here is you again in ''New Era" network, linking India to United
>>>> 'Kingdom' (then by force - today is a dissolving Kingdom)..
>>>> https://neweranetwork.info/networkers/pat-conaty/
>>>> 
>>>> As for your reply, what is very striking that not the lack of clarity
>>>> of your opinions on Fabians and relation to Fabianism, but rather a
>>>> weak confirmation you have given only one thing find good in it;
>>>> namely guild socialism; or cooperative solidarity economy vision. I
>>>> would guess this means you believe in gradual change instead of
>>>> full-force attack at the heart of the machine; which kills billions of
>>>> people and destroy the planet; the main principle of the Fabians. I
>>>> sincerely think that nothing would be wrong if this was all, an
>>>> innocent naive political view.. I mean if there was no massive funding
>>>> from Royal family, massive global networking to support imperial
>>>> policy of the West, hence being allowed access to politics at the
>>>> highest levels.. As close relationship to Labour Party, from its very
>>>> foundation, also a global university like LSE (a global complexity
>>>> management center) -also from its foundation; these all increases this
>>>> importance of Fabians in global politics (but not socialist,
>>>> capitalist one).. Through this ties, people like Polanyi, Popper,
>>>> Hayek, Coase, Rockefeller, Soros, Laszlo, mobilized... not only them
>>>> but also ‘sort’ radical or less radical thinkers of Good Global
>>>> Governance -like Graeber, Saskia Sassen, Susan George,.. etc. these
>>>> take Fabians' closest connections at the heart of the Global Class
>>>> War. That ‘s why I consider this open letter, and broader critics and
>>>> exposition of Fabian’s and the power networks they involved as one of
>>>> the most important tasks, for the good and real change.
>>>> 
>>>> More precisely; I believe and argue that the role that has been
>>>> attained to Fabians was about regulation and control, in order to
>>>> minimise the risk of too much of a radical change, that is to say
>>>> regulation of or delaying too much extreme equality might be demanded
>>>> or aimed at in the midst of the turbulence created by the global
>>>> inta-capitalist class war. It is a kind of feedback regulator for the
>>>> complex global capitalist system. To be more precise, the mission of
>>>> the Fabians has been delaying of any genuinely radical attempt that
>>>> would overturn the entire capitalist system; and steer it towards the
>>>> direction that is really outside the capitalism (be it communism,
>>>> commonism, real democracy, or name it).
>>>> 
>>>> Fabians played the key role in the reformulation and refoundation of
>>>> Social Democracy, as Democratic Socialism, as 'Delayism'. The name of
>>>> the Fabian Society, comes from the famous Fabius Maximus, also known
>>>> as 'Fabius the Delayer'. It is because he was delaying the Roman
>>>> mortal offence against Hannibal to crash him when the right time has
>>>> come (what a metaphor). Here, in the 20th century, and today’s world
>>>> at the edge of a third inter-imperialist and inter-capitalist war this
>>>> metaphor that is used by Fabians as 'delaying' means the delaying of
>>>> what Gramsci called 'war of movement', or emancipatory uprising and
>>>> construction. Fabianism in this sense means an effort, or political
>>>> project to lock the radical counter movements into 'position wars'
>>>> mode. This role, as Bertrand Russell saw it and therefore decided to
>>>> left Fabians, has been steering the world into World Wars in the
>>>> 1900s. Since according to its meta-strategy of delaying full force
>>>> attack on the global capitalist system, Fabians supported the Entente
>>>> against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russell was totally right,
>>>> Polanyi could not get it, Hayek and Popper must have sow it. Today the
>>>> role Fabian's are playing is the same one, and this time they are
>>>> serving to the arrive of the third inter-capitalist world war, by
>>>> supporting liberal Western global capital against the Brics.
>>>> 
>>>> The Fabian Society was founded on 4 January 1884 in London as an
>>>> offshoot of a society founded a year earlier called The Fellowship of
>>>> the New Life and was dissolved in 1899. From the perspective above, I
>>>> think this decision of seizing the "The New Life Fellowship" was a
>>>> good one. Since the general mission of the society, identified with
>>>> the symbolism as in "turtle" icon, or "ship in a wolf coat" (that was
>>>> abandoned too); to a large extent brought about massive deaths during
>>>> the first and second world wars. Russell was correct when leaving
>>>> Fabians, but he had to expose his criticism louder.
>>>> 
>>>> In short, Fabians' service to imperialism help to take the world to
>>>> first and second world wars, then their service in the US served to
>>>> emergence of labour imperialism.. now it is serving to Western
>>>> imperialism survival hence taking the world into the third imperialist
>>>> war.. I am sure, the delayism of Fabians, tell it is better then full
>>>> attack on the machine and kill it, let's delay the revolution and get
>>>> the wars, let capitalism re-invent itself.. I think there is something
>>>> seriously flawed with this delayism of the newer coming mortal attack
>>>> in Fabius Lucius, Fabius' strategy was to do the attack when the time
>>>> comes.. the time never comes for the Fabians, they aim to delay the
>>>> full force attack even it is the highest time. This is why they are
>>>> called 'Her majesty's' loyal opposition' -about their role in the
>>>> foundation of the Labour Party.
>>>> 
>>>> I wonder if Corbyn is a Fabian, or he is a threat for Fabians that are
>>>> leaving his team. I think if he is not a Fabian, and he can clean the
>>>> Labour Party from Fabians, and expose the global relationships of the
>>>> power structures/networks Fabian's involved he would make a great
>>>> contribution for change, more than he could as prime minister.I
>>>> believe this network includes LSE complex governance centre, Mont
>>>> Pelerin Society, Club of Rome, Club of Bucharest, World Economic
>>>> Forum, Trilateral Commission, Center of Foreign Relations, Bilderberg
>>>> circle, Ford, Rockefeller, Soros Foundations, and other major liberal
>>>> think tanks. The struggle these networks giving against the networks
>>>> of power like Neo-cons, right-wing, as well as radical left wing needs
>>>> to be openly publicly disclosed as well. Without this happening the
>>>> world has never see a good chance, and the final attack that was
>>>> prevented by Fabians (forever) will never take place. In a sense
>>>> Fabian Society will succeed, but humanity will fail.
>>>> 
>>>> Please forgive me for this letter, but I sincerely believe beyond and
>>>> over individuals, and their goodwill's, these organisations,
>>>> societies, and networks, the use of funds and political tactics, even
>>>> crimes they commit, suppress individuals with genuinely good heart and
>>>> personality. If there is a ‘war of complexity management’, individuals
>>>> become one of the variables in the management of complexities by
>>>> complexity managers. This positivist approach defended by Madron, or
>>>> used in his self-promotion to Corbyn, probably for the opening
>>>> positions in the expert chembers around him, is not the way. The
>>>> vision, that goes beyond this positivist understanding and sees all
>>>> sides as part of one system, including those complexity managers,
>>>> would bring about the global radical change that is bloody needed by
>>>> anyone, for all species; the name or form is not important, communism,
>>>> commonism, socialism.. Global elite will not be able to delay it
>>>> forever, even with the generous help of the Fabian Society. The Next
>>>> System will be build by those smashed by every new economy, and every
>>>> next system.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Orsan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 3 August 2016 at 00:25, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Orsan
>>>>> 
>>>>> Michel and I have been exchanging views for some while viz. personal
>>>>> thoughts about what is to be done. When I met you in Berlin in 2013 at the
>>>>> Economics of the Commons conference I very much enjoyed our discussion and
>>>>> hearing about Network Labor. So you asked for my perspective…….
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think there is a perennial truth and socialism at its best always has been
>>>>> linked to forms of co-operative economic democracy. In the debates about
>>>>> Fabianism, it was the guild socialist thinking and alternative that I found
>>>>> attractive. I still do.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the problem I have had with some of the modern commons conversation
>>>>> and dialogue is that many advocates are unaware of the risks of reinventing
>>>>> robust wheels. There is still a widespread lack of recognition that what
>>>>> comes around goes around and that the commons if it is to succeed for people
>>>>> and planet in this new century needs to connect with the co-operative
>>>>> commonwealth struggles of our ancestors and therefore that the past and the
>>>>> present need to be reconnected. Otherwise the hard fought wisdom from the
>>>>> past, a cultural vernacular that is precious, will be forsaken.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I did a paper for a conference in Montreal about 18 months ago that Michel
>>>>> has put on the Commons Transition site. It is two of three parts only -
>>>>> about the cardinal questions of land and money. Polanyi in his explanation
>>>>> of the double movement argued that for a Great Transition we need to take
>>>>> out of the market what Marx called the fictitious commodities. Polanyi
>>>>> agreed here completely with Marx and argued for the freeing up of land,
>>>>> labour and money by a political and structural reversing of enclosure. This
>>>>> is also the vision and practice of what EP Thompson showed as a struggle
>>>>> from our common history that focused on building co-operative commonwealth.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So you might find this three part essay of interest. I think it echoes in
>>>>> some ways at least the spirit of paper you sent me about trade unionism gone
>>>>> wrong. Each part of the essay is not long.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://commonstransition.org/co-operative-commonwealth-de-commodifying-land-and-money-part-1/
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have not included in this paper an analysis about labour but I have
>>>>> written about this elsewhere. But I really think Hilary Wainwright’s
>>>>> articles in recent years about Labour as a commons really would be what I
>>>>> would regard as a brilliant way of looking at this third part, about our
>>>>> collective selves and the future of work as a common good.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All the best
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pat
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2 Aug 2016, at 09:22, Orsan Senalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The thing is after reading Madron's critic of usual leaders and then reading
>>>>> Lilian Greenwood's speech, one (or I) thinks immediately that Lillan shows
>>>>> almost all skills of self-branding, her masculine tone in her self-marketing
>>>>> as natural born labour leader in Madron's sharp critics... I don't know why
>>>>> but somehow one gains more sympathy for Corbyn to be honest after reading
>>>>> this stuff. On the other hand I am highly critical about Madron's references
>>>>> like Koku and Kurzweil, they are similar to Rifkin; imagining perfect
>>>>> capitalism.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think Michel's critical integral perspective which sounds more close to
>>>>> Tektological thinking is more useful to envision a genuine radical change;
>>>>> Pat you are supposed to be supporting from a left-socialist point of view. I
>>>>> have been wondering for a while about your ideas and views on Fabianism and
>>>>> Fabian society, if I may ask with this opportunity? And if you find Corbyn
>>>>> too left, of radical, or simply not as a good leader, and in what sense?
>>>>> Those points would make more sense since it sounds to me that those who are
>>>>> leaving Corbyn's 'experts team were close to your networks, around 'new
>>>>> economy'; so can that be the reason of your reserves on Corbyn?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Orsan
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 01 Aug 2016, at 18:52, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Anna
>>>>> 
>>>>> Michel and I are discussing these matters with other colleagues. A close
>>>>> colleague, Henry Tam, who was a senior civil servant
>>>>> under Labour before 2010 and set up a creative Empowerment Fund for
>>>>> grassroots projects. This did lots of good work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> He has been hopeful about Corbyn. But having seen at first hand politicians
>>>>> at their worst and best he now has his concerns.
>>>>> 
>>>>> He shared this speech a few days ago from a Labour MP and active trade
>>>>> unionist. She highlights some things that Gary Younge raised his worries
>>>>> about.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_labour_party_members
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pat
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:44, Anna Harris <anna at shsh.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for these links Pat, and any others you think would be helpful.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anna
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:32, Pat Conaty <pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Michel
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not sure about the internal politics within the team. A number left in the
>>>>> team are good experts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But my point is that several elements have to be aligned. A new accountable
>>>>> leadership style for sure as the article you shared makes clear.
>>>>> Then a creative use of complexity theory in practice.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But also if the theory of new economics is not sound then this impacts on
>>>>> the programmes. Not due to leadership but because of a faulty understanding
>>>>> and analysis.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For example Richard Murphy from the UK Tax Justice Network was not selected
>>>>> to be in the Corbyn advice team whereas last summer he was guiding Corbyn
>>>>> on Peoples QE that was popular with people in the Labour party who voted for
>>>>> Corbyn. Since then these ideas have been not on the agenda and what Ingham
>>>>> calls for
>>>>> is not far removed from Murphy’s thinking and guidance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All the best
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pat
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 17:20, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks for the details Pat,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I remember critiques that Jeremy was not a good listener and did not work
>>>>> well with his advisory team,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Michel
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Pat Conaty
>>>>> <pat.commonfutures at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Michel
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is a good piece on complexity theory and participative politics that
>>>>>> Anna Harris has shared. As I have mentioned, this way forward is great and
>>>>>> also the
>>>>>> work of Stafford Beer on viable systems theory for intensifying
>>>>>> co-operative forms of democracy. But I only wish Corbyn was moving in this
>>>>>> direction. Not questioning his good will to do so and his integrity of
>>>>>> course but little evidence of this yet emerging. See the relatively recent
>>>>>> Gary Younge article below when there
>>>>>> were three leaders in the race for Labour party leader, now just Smith and
>>>>>> Corbyn.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/13/corbyn-critics-destroying-labour-party-members
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But in addition to complexity management and new forms of leadership,
>>>>>> there is the need for a deeper understanding of economics and what is money.
>>>>>> This question is the
>>>>>> Elephant in the room as Geoffrey Ingham explained and that all socialists
>>>>>> need to get to grips with. The Economic Advisory Committee advising
>>>>>> Corbyn are all left of centre economists but even Piketty and Stiglitz
>>>>>> have a poor analysis of What is money as Ingham highlights below.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/geoffrey-ingham/whose-money-is-it
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Corbyn and other anti-austerity politicians thus lacks guidance on this
>>>>>> question that is crucial for developing alternative economic strategies.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ingham is a professor at Cambridge. He is a socialist and in his book, The
>>>>>> Nature of Money, he shows that unfortunately Marx got the money question
>>>>>> wrong. Despite some great insights, fundamentally Marx concluded that money
>>>>>> was a commodity. He took this from Aristotle. The real truth is that it is
>>>>>> not a commodity but a social technology as David Graeber has shown.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However as Ingham observes, this errant view of Marx has sent most of the
>>>>>> left down the wrong road to understand money and hence most of the left is
>>>>>> blind on this question. From a theoretical perspective this is a fatal flaw.
>>>>>> Ingham argues so well that we need to revisit the What is money debates from
>>>>>> the 1920s and folk like Gesell and also Douglas and social credit ideas as
>>>>>> these show where the real answers are.  Ingham calls for a public social
>>>>>> partnership on monetary and banking reform to replace the oppressive and
>>>>>> toxic public private partnership destroying both society and ecology and
>>>>>> leading us in to relentless wars defending geopolitical turf over oil and
>>>>>> other resources.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Pat
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 1 Aug 2016, at 09:16, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> dear Pat, has anything been written on the contrary view that was reported
>>>>>> on in that other discussion ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Michel
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Anna Harris <anna at shsh.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The Corbyn Model of Leadership
>>>>>>> Of all the people currently in leadership positions in a major political
>>>>>>> party anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn is the only one who shows the
>>>>>>> potential of being a leader who could begin to manage successfully the
>>>>>>> complex problems that all of our societies have to face in the coming
>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Brilliant article, first I've seen really understanding what Corbyn is
>>>>>>> trying to do.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://medium.com/@ROY_MADRON/the-corbyn-model-of-leadership-a7a006405f27#.hyj8ckaw2
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NetworkedLabour mailing list
>>>>> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
>>>>> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20160803/c8f5994e/attachment-0001.html>

• Previous message: [P2P-F] An Open Letter to the Fabian Society (was: Re: [NetworkedLabour] New models of leadership)
• Next message: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] An Open Letter to the Fabian Society (was: Re: New models of leadership)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]