[P2P-F] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation

[Roberto Verzola]

> what I am suggesting is not a linear process of 'first this, then
> that', but rather a converging process of creating new economic
> forms, creating bioregional meshworks, but also, gaining political

Dear Michel,

May I suggest a word for the process you are describing:
"constructal", from constructal theory.

It is used by Adrian Bejan to describe his theory of the emergence of
patterns and structures in a wide range of phenomena--physical,
biological, social, etc. Bejan says (more or less) that in all kinds of
phenomena that involve flows (of electrons, molecules, air, water,
blood, goods, people, information, knowledge, energy, heat, etc.), the
flow naturally searches for--and finds--paths of least resistance. He
calls this the "constructal law". Another way of saying this is that
the flow discovers the paths that require the least energy. And this
process generates patterns and structures that turn out to be
surprisingly common among an extremely wide range of phenomena. The
patterns and structures invariably take not a linear form, but very
often take the form of a tree or an inverted tree in open systems, or
in closed system the form of a mesh (though not the ordinary net, but
more like the human circulatory system, with varying sizes of pathways).

You used the term "converging process". It might also be, in other
situations, a diverging one (as in evolution). When a tree grows roots
and branches which diverge in space, you can see it also as a
converging structure for collecting sunshine and water. Bejan found
commonalities (even at the descriptive mathematical level) among such
wide ranges of patterns and structures. Needless to say, he also tried
to apply his constructal law to aspects of human phenomena.

I am not comfortable with some of his specific conclusions, but when
something is pursued from first principles (which is what Bejan does)
obviously we can expect some occasional surprises.

Of course, using the term is not something to be done casually, as
it suggests that you are tapping into Bejan's metaphor, if
not his theoretical framework.

Greetings,

Roberto


On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 05:02:15 +0700
Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:

> dear John,
> 
> if that is what I said, then my response was surely to linear,
> 
> I think your approach of bio-regional commons making is essential,
> but I would suggest that  it is impossible with extractive forms of
> production, governance and ownership .. I think one is the condition
> of the other. Yes, we can somewhat humanize and discipline extractive
> capital, but only if there is a strong core of working alternatives
> that is strong enough to do so,
> 
> what I am suggesting is not a linear process of 'first this, then
> that', but rather a converging process of creating new economic
> forms, creating bioregional meshworks, but also, gaining political
> and social influence to be able to do so,
> 
> but you're right to stress that placemaking effort as vital as well
> 
> Michel
> 
> Michel
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:18 AM, John Thackara
> <john at doorsofperception.com> wrote:
> 
> > Michel,
> >
> > Isn’t your response to Ellen a bit too linear? It suggests that
> > first “we” seize power - by capturing capital, machines, knowledge -
> > and then, having done that, we liberate the land from its
> > oppression by capital.
> >
> > My own take is that reconnecting with place - in my language, a
> > bioregion
> > - is a more fruitful way to recompose social forces than fighting to
> > control the means of production.
> >
> > Apart from anything else, production and productivism are a big
> > part of the problem.
> >
> > Within a a bioregional frame, in contrast, growth can once again be
> > good if it means improving the health and carrying capacity of the
> > land, and the resilience of communities.
> >
> > The stewardship of unique places is a form of value creation that
> > can unite people who disagree  on most everything else.
> >
> > John T, Ganges
> >
> >
> > On 17 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> >
> > I agree Ellen that this is also a very important third aspect, but
> > also requires major political and social power to achieve it. The
> > present land and water commons are declining rather than becoming
> > stronger.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Ellen Friedman
> > <ellen at ellenfriedman.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think Jakob speaks to something I noticed after reading Michel’s
> >> original piece that began this discussion. Michel wrote,
> >> "Overcoming the capitalist form of the market, means interfering
> >> in capital accumulation. This can and must be done in two ways.”
> >>
> >> There’s a third way that’s essential to interfering with capital
> >> accumulation. This third way is to liberate the land, waters and
> >> all life. The life blood of capitalism is the living planet.
> >> Privatization of the land, water and all life must end. Land and
> >> water must be liberated from the social construct of property.
> >> Life should never be property.
> >>
> >> One way I see this happening is by creating a polycentric system of
> >> planetary commons trusts formed around ecosystems so they can be
> >> stewarded both locally and globally. In order to right the wrong
> >> of dispossession and create reparations, local stewardship could
> >> be led by indigenous peoples. Once the living planet is in a
> >> trust, corporations and governments should be charged rent for
> >> using the land, water, minerals and more. This would end
> >> externalization of costs. The trusts could set limits on what is
> >> taken in order to restore the planet to health and steward the
> >> living land and waters in perpetuity. Funds raised in this way
> >> could provide the means for planetary restoration and a basic
> >> income for humans.
> >>
> >> There’s a movement to create a fifth missing international crime
> >> against peace- ecocide. Corporations who have committed ecocide
> >> should be prosecuted, their assets seized and their charters
> >> revoked. Seized assets could be used to remediate the harm and
> >> provide additional operational funds for the trusts. For example,
> >> BP’s assets could be used to create a trust for the Gulf of Mexico
> >> and the people of the area. Exxon’s assets could be used to combat
> >> climate change and provide funds for resettling refugees.
> >>
> >> Ellen
> >> Austin, Tx.
> >>
> >> On Jun 16, 2016, at 6:03 AM, Jakob Rigi <Rigij at ceu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Michel,
> >>
> >> You simply avoid to answer my questions. Capitalism emerged by
> >> dispossessing immediate producers from their means of productions
> >> and transforming these producers into waged labourers. Capitalism
> >> reproduces itself by paying wages that are enough for the
> >> reproduction of labour power. Thus the worker remain dispossessed.
> >> Land and nature as the main source of life are private property of
> >> capitalists. No one will ever be able to build a new collective
> >> mode of production without collectivising first land and other
> >> means of production and this requires expropriating capitalists: a
> >> social revolution. You avoid to answer the questions by the
> >> rhetoric that the Marxist strategy has failed. If by the Marxist
> >> strategy you mean the Soviet case,  it had some achievements but
> >> failed. But, that failure  does not imply that the historical
> >> project of expropriating capitalist has failed. The industrial
> >> capitalism first emerged in Italian city states but was aborted
> >> there. Later, in more mature condition it took not only root in
> >> Britain but become globalised. Generalising the soviet experiment
> >> in rhetorical way as you do into a law is very mechanistic and
> >> deterministic. The failure of the Soviet experiment is by no means
> >> prove that a new effort in our time for expropriating the
> >> expropriators will also fail.   We need to judged the success and
> >> failure of the Soviet case in its historical conditions. Jakob
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* michelsub2004 at gmail.com <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> on
> >> behalf of Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
> >> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 17:25
> >> *To:* Jakob Rigi
> >> *Cc:* Orsan Senalp; Commoning; networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org;
> >> p2p-foundation
> >> *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist
> >> strategy of the P2P Foundation
> >>
> >> Jakob,
> >>
> >> capitalism can only reproduce itself through commodity labor and
> >> workers as consumers, this gives us powerful leverage.
> >>
> >> if we don't have the power, nor a social consensus to
> >> 'expropriate', the building of counter-hegemonic power is
> >> essential to get there ... merely mobilizing counter-power within
> >> the capitalist system, i.e. dependent labor, has not worked for
> >> 200 years, and I see few signs that it can. The diverse forms of
> >> property that exist, and protected by the state, can be used by
> >> commoners to mutualize capital and means of production. Obviously,
> >> powerful social movements can set rules to limit monopolistic
> >> control of resources, but then you still have to deal with the
> >> impotence of nations to do this, and they most likely will smash
> >> you, as they are doing with greece and venezuela and elsewhere.
> >> This brings to the fore the other aspect of our strategy, which is
> >> to built counter-hegemonic power at the global level. Just
> >> screaming "I hate capitalism and I will smash you" is not going to
> >> do it.
> >>
> >> The strategy we describe worked for capital and for all the
> >> previous transitions (read Karatini), while the marxist strategy
> >> of taking power and change everything once we have that power, has
> >> been a dismal failure. So I think that continuing in that vein
> >> after 200 years of failure, that is the wishful thinking. It
> >> hasn't worked for previous transitions, and isn't working for this
> >> transition, so what is your evidence ? Our strategy is based on
> >> the necessary prefigurative construction of counter-power, which
> >> is how past transitions were successful
> >>
> >> Michel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jakob Rigi <RigiJ at ceu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mitchel
> >>> The idea that commoners and cooperative worker can challenge
> >>> capitalism by working for themselves and make the state their
> >>> partner is a wishful fantasy- is not  realisable.
> >>> Capitalism is in the first place  the private ownership in means
> >>> of production. And the state is in the first place the power and
> >>> institutions  that protect the private property in means of
> >>> production. No cooperative production can become the dominant
> >>> mode of production unless land and other  strategic means of
> >>> productions have been transformed into commons.
> >>> Do you agree with this statement? If not what are your counter
> >>> argument?
> >>>
> >>> If yes, then how land other strategic means of production can be
> >>> transformed into commons?
> >>> I argue that this require expropriating capitalists. If you
> >>> disagree, what are your counter arguments?
> >>> If you agree, then,  making the production of commons the
> >>> dominant mode of production requires confronting the sate not
> >>> becoming its partner. Capitalist did not needed  always to
> >>> expropriate the feudal landowners since the latter started to
> >>> lease their land to capitalists. But, capitalists expropriated
> >>> small owners the means of production-the so called primitive
> >>> accumulation. The emerging Feudal class did not expropriate  the
> >>> slave owners since salve owners themselves became feudals. But,
> >>> capitalist having expropriated the majority of the population and
> >>> thereby have monopolised the strategic means of production.
> >>> Transferring these means of production to the majority, meaning
> >>> making them universal commons of humanity requires expropriating
> >>> capitalists. But, state would not allow us to do that. It will
> >>> tell you that capitalist ownership is guaranteed by the law. And
> >>> the law is the holiest of the holy. We-the state- will not permit
> >>> anyone to break the law even if it will be necessary to shed
> >>> blood.  Our monopoly right our violence is here to protect
> >>> capitalist property in means of production . So the commoners mus
> >>> confront such a state and smash at least its coercive and violent
> >>> institutions and expropriate the expropriators for the benefit of
> >>> the humanity as whole and transform their property int universal
> >>> commons.
> >>>
> >>> Jakob
> >>> Jakob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> *From:* NetworkedLabour
> >>> <networkedlabour-bounces at lists.contrast.org> on behalf of Orsan
> >>> Senalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com> *Sent:* 15 June 2016 10:47
> >>> *To:* Jakob Rigi; Michel Bauwens
> >>> *Cc:* Commoning; networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org;
> >>> p2p-foundation *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the
> >>> post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
> >>>
> >>> There are many overlapping aspect between Cox, and Van Der Pijl's
> >>> 'transnational historical materialist' analysis and what you have
> >>> put together Michel.So I share the vision, I only would add a
> >>> direct-action, political confrontation axe which needs to be
> >>> built based on what can be imagined as 'peer to peer social
> >>> network unionism'. As supportive element in terms of organizing
> >>> power, and broader alliance building, hence collectivization of
> >>> working alternatives and to defend them against ruling class
> >>> violence and use of force. Not to precede what you suggest or to
> >>> replace it but simultaneously empower the counter hegemonic
> >>> transnational trinity (of as in Cox Institutons-material
> >>> capabilities-ideas / capital-state-nation).
> >>>
> >>> Orsan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 15 Jun 2016, at 03:56, Michel Bauwens
> >>> <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> some of you may be interested in this short note:
> >>> Post-Capitalist Strategy of the P2P Foundation
> >>>
> >>> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation#mw-head>
> >>> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation#p-search>
> >>>
> >>> Discussion[edit
> >>> <http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Post-Capitalist_Strategy_of_the_P2P_Foundation&action=edit&section=1>
> >>> ]
> >>> Michel Bauwens:
> >>> "A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
> >>> Following Kojin Karatini, we agree that the present system is
> >>> based on a trinity of capital-state-nation, which represents an
> >>> integration of three modes of exchange. Capital represents a
> >>> particular market form based on the endless accumulation of
> >>> capital, the state is the entity that keeps the system together
> >>> through coercion, law and redistribution (Karatini calls this
> >>> function ‘rule and protect’), and the nation is the ‘imagined
> >>> community’ that is the locus of the survival of community and
> >>> reciprocity. A post-capitalist strategy must necessarily overcome
> >>> all three in a new integration. Overcoming the capitalist form of
> >>> the market, means interfering in capital accumulation. This can
> >>> and must be done in two ways. First of all, the capitalist market
> >>> requires labor as a commodity, and therefore, overcoming
> >>> capitalism means refusing to work for capitalism as commodity
> >>> labor. Hence the stress on open cooperativism, i.e. commoners
> >>> work for themselves, in democratic associations and create
> >>> autonomous livelihoods around our commons, protected from value
> >>> capture through membranes such as reciprocity-based licenses.
> >>> Measures like the basic income also substantially remove the
> >>> compulsion for workers to have to sell their labor power, and
> >>> would strengthen the capacity to create alternative economic
> >>> entities. However, we must proceed with the reality that exists
> >>> today, and create our own funding and resource allocation
> >>> mechanisms. The second way is to withdraw from capitalism and
> >>> capital accumulation is by removing our cooperation as consumers.
> >>> Without workers as producers and workers as consumers, there can
> >>> be no reproduction of capital. The latter means the invention and
> >>> creation of new forms of consumption that are derived from the
> >>> creation of open cooperatives. Workers mutualize their
> >>> consumption in pooled market forms such as community-supported
> >>> agriculture and the like. To the degree that we systematically
> >>> organize new provisioning and consumption systems, outside of the
> >>> sphere of capital, we undermine the reproduction of capital and
> >>> capital accumulation. In addition, we create ‘transvestment’
> >>> vehicles, which allow the acceptance of capital, as disciplined
> >>> by the new commons and market forms that we develop through peer
> >>> production, this creates a flow of value from the system of
> >>> capital to the system of the commons economy. Faced with a crisis
> >>> of capital accumulation, it is entirely realistic to expect a
> >>> stream of value which seeks a place in the commons economy.
> >>> Instead of the cooptation of the commons economy by capital, in
> >>> the form of the netarchical capitalist platforms which capture
> >>> value from the commons, we coopt capital inside the commons, and
> >>> subject it to its rules.
> >>>
> >>> I believe we can achieve similar effects with the state. Our
> >>> strategy for a ‘partner state’ is to ‘commonify’ the state. We
> >>> strive to transform state functions so that they actually empower
> >>> and enable the autonomy of the citizens as individuals and
> >>> groups, to create common resources, instead of being ‘consumers’
> >>> of state services. We abolish the separation of the state from
> >>> the population by increasing democratic and participatory
> >>> decision-making. We consider the public service as a commons,
> >>> giving every citizen and resident the right to work in the
> >>> commonified public services. But we don’t ‘withdraw’ completely
> >>> from the state because we need common good institutions for
> >>> everyone in a given territory, which creates equal capacities for
> >>> every citizen to contribute to the commons and the ethical market
> >>> organizations.
> >>>
> >>> In another article we have argued that the capital-state-nation
> >>> trinity is no longer able to balance global capitalism, because
> >>> it has created a very powerful transnational financial class,
> >>> which is able to move resources globally and discipline the state
> >>> and the nations that dare rebalance it. Our answer is to create
> >>> trans-local and trans-national civic and economic entities that
> >>> can eventually rebalance and counter the power of the
> >>> transnational capitalist class. This is realistic because peer
> >>> production technologies create global open design communities
> >>> that mutualize knowledge on a global scale, and because we can
> >>> create global and ethical market organizations around them. Even
> >>> as we produce locally, we organize trans-local productive
> >>> communities. These trans-local productive communities are no
> >>> longer bound by the nation-state and project and require forms of
> >>> governance that can operate on the global scale. In this way,
> >>> they also transcend the power of the nation-state. As we
> >>> explained in our strategy regarding the global capitalist market,
> >>> these forces can operate against the accumulation of capital at
> >>> the global level, and create global counter-hegemonic power. In
> >>> all likelihood, this will create global governance mechanisms and
> >>> institutions that are no longer inter-national, but
> >>> trans-national, but are not transnational capitalism. In
> >>> conclusion, our aim is to replace the capital-state-nation
> >>> trinity, which is no longer functioning, and to avoid global
> >>> domination of private capital, by creating a new integrative
> >>> trinity, Commons-Ethical Market- Partner State, that is not
> >>> confined to the nation-state level, but can operate
> >>> trans-nationally and transcend the older and dysfunctional
> >>> trinity. Through these processes, citizens develop cosmopolitan
> >>> subjectivities but also allegiance to local and trans-national
> >>> commons-oriented communities of value creation and value
> >>> distribution."
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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/
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Commoning mailing list
> >> Commons-Institut e.V. Germany
> >> Commoning at lists.commons-institut.org
> >> https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Commoning mailing list
> > Commons-Institut e.V. Germany
> > Commoning at lists.commons-institut.org
> > https://lists.schokokeks.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/commoning
> >
> >
> > John Thackara
> > *TALKS doorsofperception.com/talks/
> > <http://doorsofperception.com/talks/>*
> >
> > *TWITTER  @johnthackara
> > <http://twitter.com/johnthackara>BLOG   doorsofperception.com
> > <http://doorsofperception.com/>EMAIL    john at thackara.com
> > <john at thackara.com>CELL   + 33 6 21 77 83 19
> > <%2B%2033%206%2021%2077%2083%2019> LINKED-IN
> > linkedin.com/in/thackara <http://linkedin.com/in/thackara>NEW BOOK
> > #ThackaraThrive *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>