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

• Previous message: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] [commoning] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
• Next message: [P2P-F] New article from Michel Bauwens
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In that case though they evolved in the context of a larger society
built around inequality, where the structural forces favored
inequality, and were eventually distorted by that hegemonic structure.
As also with your above comment on capital coopting open-source, my
gut feeling is that just is the opposite in our time. The cooptation
of p2p and micro-manufacturing by finance and by the corporate form is
an untenable intermediate stage, in an era where the long-term
structural trends are against large-scale institutions of capital and
state.

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Michel Bauwens
<michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
> 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
>
> Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/



-- 
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

• Previous message: [P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] [commoning] A note on the post-capitalist strategy of the P2P Foundation
• Next message: [P2P-F] New article from Michel Bauwens
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]