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

[Michel Bauwens]

Dear Kevin,

the times when guilds and commons associations in the countryside provided
these solidarity mechanisms, were highly unequal periods; and a patchwork
of independent guilds would quickly lead to highly unequal outcomes (the
monopoly game) ; this is why we need democratic polities to insure overall
equality;

as far as I understand the evolution of the guilds, they started
differentiatiing, merchant guilds became the strongest, and families
detached themselves from the guilds to become early capitalists

I think the difference between us is whether a society exists  separately
as a field seperately from private agreements between autonomous players :
I think it does and so we need a democratic polity to address common
'territorial' and other issues.

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Kevin Carson <
free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think there will likely be analogues of the Basic Income even in a
> non-state framework, provided by post-capitalist equivalents of
> medieval guilds, commons rights in open field villages, and the like.
> As states and corporations become fiscally exhausted and retreat from
> the social field, and both state- and employer-based safety nets
> erode, people will fill the void by creating a wide variety of primary
> social units on a multi-family scale for pooling income, costs and
> risks -- much like the self-sufficient units that emerged during the
> collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Micro-villages, extended family
> compounds, neighborhood associations and co-housing arrangements,
> urban communes.... A growing share of people will be born into such
> primary social units as the new norm, with an automatic right to an
> aliquot share of arable land and/or access to machines in the
> community shop, and some minimum (probably quite modest by our
> standards) required number of hours producing for common consumption
> in return for guaranteed sustenance to children, the aged and those
> unable to work.
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Michel Bauwens
> <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
> > except you cannot ever institute a basic unconditional income outside of
> the
> > collective institution that is the state .. so there is a choice to be
> made,
> > where do you put your energy ... achieving the basic income would require
> > significant social mobilization and energy.
> >
> > continuing to work on the commons economy on the other hand, is
> something we
> > can, and even must do, in the context of increasing market and state
> > failure,
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Anna Harris <anna at shsh.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> All of these proposals are not intrinsically opposed to each other. They
> >> can all run, indeed should run alongside each other. These are all
> possible
> >> solutions. Why waste time arguing which one is better? Being creative
> means
> >> using all of them at different times, in different circumstances.
> History
> >> cannot prove to us that what failed before will not at some future date
> be
> >> successful. We may see trends now, but we cannot predict with certainty
> that
> >> these will become strong enough to replace the current capital system,
> or
> >> that elites will give up their power without violent resistance.
> >>
> >> Anna
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 17 Jun 2016, at 02:25, Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Discussion[edit]
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160619/089053f4/attachment-0001.htm>