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

[Michel Bauwens]

well, if I'm not mistaken, Orsan is the only one who depends directly on
the capitalist marketplace, but I do not believe that is what motivates his
opposition, I find that a reductionist interpretation,

neither would I explain the non-binary approaches from the opposite
reasoning, i.e. that these views are held because of a relative
independence to the marketplace

these reasonings may work on aggregate for structural explanations, but
they can't explain individual choices


Michel

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Anna Harris <anna at shsh.co.uk> wrote:

> It often seems to me that the need to justify ones own position as opposed
> to, rather than in addition to, or including others, comes from the
> structural imperative to earn a living, which necessitates offering
> something different and therefore of value in
>
> the market place. This is the inevitable concomitant of a capitalist
> economy which requires people to have something of value which they can
> sell to earn a living - labour, intellect, care, etc.
>
>
> Anna
>
>
> On 3 Aug 2016, at 21:31, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One of your comments resonated with me. We have pretty much abandoned
> seeking funding and have also stopped responding to request from other
> people to help them with funding. That leaves holes. But I think we
> gotta figure out how to support our own activities as much as
> possible. I know, not always possible.
>
> We could try dues...that's what the old Nonpartisan League did and
> they took over North Dakota and created the state bank, among other
> things.
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Orsan <orsan1234 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well I was expecting you and Peter would make this warning. And this
> argument is about the methodology of analysis, or as Madron put it, and
> Fabians would totally agree 'operational complexity management'. I think at
> the current point of time complexity managers has more advanced tools and
> infrastructures to manage the complexity that  opposition forces added on
> the complexity created by the intra-elite struggle. On the one hand there
> emerges an alliance of 'delayists' (around next system project, new economy
> alliance, de-growth so on) and on the radical left 'acclerationists' are
> forming a constellation (around Negri and so on). Some from left like
> Michael Aalbert, and parecon, David Harvey and rabel cities, negrists or
> cognitive captalists 'platform cooperatvism', Eric Olin Wright and real
> Utopias.. are counted in the next system alliance. On the driving seat, as
> John Restakis prompted sometimes ago, there are networks which are funded
> by OAK foundation of UK Royal-state, Rockefe
>
> llar, Ford, Soros foundation so on. These formed a founder alliance called
> Edge Funders, whom Michel thinks are radicals. They fund all sort of
> spaces, from WSF, to Left Forum, from the events Michel and Pat mentioned,
> to Ripess -Synergia people (social solidarity economy discourse), from TNI
> to all sort of movement building hubs. Yes There are contradictions every
> where, there is a chaos too, but also there are some orders and
> regularities that are telling us something, and most worrisome is no one is
> talking about with the fear of not getting any funding and suffer
> economically. That state of 'being determines the consciousness'. The more
> no one is willing to talk about these openly the more things go worse. That
> is all I wanted to say..
>
>
> Orsan
>
>
> On 3 aug. 2016, at 22:03, Bob Haugen <bob.haugen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I snipped the previous contents, they were overloading my email
>
> viewer. And deleted the WSF from the distro list so they stop
>
> complaining at me.
>
>
> Dear Orsan, I agree that alliances with aspects of the powers-that-be
>
> pose dangers. And co-optation happens. Fortunately, they don't want to
>
> ally with me anyway, otherwise I would need to thread some of those
>
> needles.
>
>
> I would, however, repost what I understood from Peter's message. If we
>
> are dialectical materialists, we gotta do a dialectical analysis of
>
> all these forces and their contradictions and also and maybe
>
> especially their internal contradictions.
>
>
> And even after the revolution or transformation or whatever, there
>
> will still be contradictions. That's life.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160804/663e8803/attachment.html>