[P2P-F] Reformist or radical

Sun Aug 7 06:29:04 CEST 2016

> In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different
> things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to

But a lot of misjudgments are made, and some who think themselves very radical misjudge people who want fundamental change too, as people who just want to protect the present system. 

Furthermore, even those who want fundamental change will disagree among themselves up to what point change must happen. Are you just against high interest rates (but low rates are ok)? Are you against the entire principle of charging interest? Or maybe you are also against fractional reserve banking? But others are against the whole idea of fiat money too. Or are you for the abolition of money in general? Or perhaps against markets in general? Are you against specific bad corporations only, or against the corporate form of business in general, or against business in general? If some are not against money in general but only about some aspects of it, does that make them reformists now because because they want to retain other aspects of the money system? Or the market system for that matter. Someone's radical is somebody else's reformist.

In such an incredibly complex situation, especially when activists continue to educate themselves along and their positions may change over time, it is not good to set onesself up as judge and brand people this or that, especially on an open list, as if one had exclusive monopoly over truth. 

In fact, most on this list are right some of the time and wrong some of the time. 

On a different note: I'm currently reading this (admittedly old--2004) book THE GREAT ADVENTURE: Towards a Fully Human Theory of Evolution by David Loye (ed.). It refers to "evolution theorist" Riane Eisler. It says Eisler in her contributed article "brings to life how, underlying the full range of human relationships from intimate to international are two basic social structures: the domination model and the partnership model". Eisler "shows how the tension between these two models has shaped history, and how the outcome of this tension is key to fulfillment or extinction for our species."

Eisler might as well have written about the client/server vs the P2P model... In my current work on renewable energy, I am also coming across the same tension between the centralized power generation model and the distributed generation model. A similar tension exists in agriculture and many other areas, as Eisler has observed. Their efforts might yet provide another illuminating context to the P2P movement.

The book itself describes an ongoing effort to marry psychology with the theory of evolution towards a new theory of *human* evolution that goes far beyond the "survival of the fittest" cliche of neo-darwinists.

Greetings to all,

Roberto Verzola
Philippines

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 21:33:19 -0500
Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:

> In my opinion "reformism" and gradualism are two entirely different
> things -- the difference being that the later envisons a transition to
> a system that is fundamentally different, but simply sees the
> transition as a medium- or long-term process, whereas the former wants
> to stabilize and ameliorate the existing system of power.
> 
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:55 AM, 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
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kevin Carson
> Senior Fellow, Karl Hess Scholar in Social Theory
> Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
> 
> "You have no authority that we are bound to respect" -- John Perry Barlow
> "We are legion. We never forgive. We never forget. Expect us" -- Anonymous
> 
> Homebrew Industrial Revolution:  A Low-Overhead Manifesto
> http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com
> Desktop Regulatory State http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> 
> Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net
> Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> 
> Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support.
> https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation
> 
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- 
Roberto Verzola <rverzola at gn.apc.org>