[P2P-F] Reformist or radical

Mon Aug 8 06:06:26 CEST 2016

Dear Anna,

I'm glad it was useful. I'm currently engaged in work that will explore the potential of RE-based microgrids as commons. I also coordinate a farming network that promotes the system of rice intensification (SRI) in the Philippines. Earlier I had done a lot of work on the information economy. So I have seen first hand these tensions between centralized vs decentralized, domination vs partnership models, and client/server vs P2P.

Greetings,

Roberto

On Sun, 7 Aug 2016 22:11:58 +0100
Anna Harris <anna at shsh.co.uk> wrote:

> Dear Roberto, I really appreciated your contribution to the discussion
> around 'reform versus radical revolution'. Our ability to tolerate
> differences with people who are basically on the same side, seems crucial
> to me in overcoming the fragmentation and infighting which besets left
> activists, which Occupy did much to temporarily overcome.
> 
> Equally I appreciate your reference to Riane Eisler and the dichotomy
> between dominator and partnership structures, which for me compliments,
> perhaps even replaces class and gender power structures, for its
> explanatory depth.
> 
> The necessity for renewable energy to be distributed rather than
> centralised is a central tenet of Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution.
> And the application to agriculture is embodied in Via Campesina's campaign
> for food sovereignty and agroecology, both topics that have been discussed
> in these lists.
> 
> The evolution towards something more human needs to include caring feelings
> which Rifkin attempted in his The Empathic Civilisation.
> 
> Thanks again
> 
> Anna
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 7, 2016 5:33 AM, "Roberto Verzola" <rverzola at gn.apc.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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>