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

Sun Jun 19 04:41:44 CEST 2016

I agree with Kevin that at the hardware-software level much can be
done locally, given the technologies that he cites.

My own worry is more about the increasingly vast info-gathering powers
(the technologies also improving rapidly) that centralized
institutions--govt and private--are acquiring: the
NSA-Microsoft-Google-Facebook complex. Just to give one
example: the increasing numbers of CCTV cameras deployed in public
places. In some areas, even small businesses are now required (using
crime and terrorism as excuse) to install them. Almost every
computer/smartphone now comes with a camera. And microphone too. Sooner
or later, if it has not happened already, these can be remotely
activated for surveillance. Plus all the info we willingly give in
every online transaction, in exchange for convenience. 

In short, we can choose to go small-scale/local/p2p/foss/organic/
renewable/bike transpo PGP Duckduckgo Bitcoin etc but how many are
willing to put up with the inconveniences (the central institutions
will make sure of that) that go with them? How many on this list, for
instance? It is dilemma of The Matrix. The mere use of technologies
themselves, as E.F.Schumacher observed a long time ago, shapes minds
and changes mindsets.

Eric's earlier post about adaptive reuse describes a decaying
civilization that has lost a lot of its powers. Unfortunately at the
level I'm describing (control of information, behavior and mind), their
powers are increasing day by day. 

I am reminded of a debate here (on media) between mining companies and
the local farmers who opposed them. The mining rep accused the
anti-mining leader of hypocrisy because he used the metal products of
mining like laptops and cellphones. The leader replied, "Ok, we can
stop using your products if you also stop using ours. Let's see who
gives in first!" Very powerful riposte, but are we willing to exercise
that option? (I try, one reason why my posts are very occasional, only
when I think what I'll say is important enough.)

All this implied suggestion about violence (behind the word
"expropriation") recalls to me the old Marx Lenin Mao etc approach
though cast in contemporary terms. Be careful what you ask for... Had
they won the Cold War, can you imagine where we'd be today? (I can
already hear in my head a friend's reply, "Probably like China!" Or
like North Korea?, who knows...). The law of unintended consequences
can play cruel historical jokes sometimes.

I've tried that route too by the way. Today, in case anybody is
interested, my personal "ideology" if you can call it that, is the
prayer "Give me the courage to change the things I can, the serenity to
accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference." 

I couple this apparently less "revolutionary" approach with the insights
from the sciences of complexity, which have seeming equivalents in
quantum physics although I don't know if they are real or imagined.
These insights say even ordinary termites, working only locally and
aware only of what their immediate neighbors are doing, can build
architectural/ecological wonders, which somehow emerge out of local
interactions without need for a grand design (or a grand designer for
that matter). 

But then again, termites are the products of millions of years of
evolution and God knows how many failures, before the species that
survive today got it right. We don't have that luxury. We will probably
need to act with more intentionality and mindfulness than termites do.

As you can see, although I am somewhat confident in my own ideas, I'm
not so sure about them that I'd be willing to ask people to
"expropriate" others for these ideas. Also those others will probably
"expropriate" back and we end up with the law of unintended
consequences again.

I do have an idea how to deal with corporations, which I try every so
often. It is not expropriation. It is more about asking everyone
(you have to do it yourself of course) to take all kinds of steps, big
and small, legal or otherwise, to whittle down their profits,
until existing is not profitable anymore. For Monsanto, for instance,
mandatory labelling of GMOs will probably do it. Even at the 5% content
level (big debate I know), they cannot be profitable with only 5% of the
market, and as a contaminant at that. Edward Abbey's Monkey Wrench
Gang described other ways, probably applicable to mining companies.
Just keep whittling down their profits. We can be very creative here,
more than termites. Deny them markets. Raise their costs. etc. I call
this approach "working with the nature of corporations." Like termites
bringing down an unwelcome house.

Greetings to all,

Roberto Verzola

On Sat, 18 Jun 2016
15:49:23 -0500 Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The technologies I'm thinking of are the kinds of open-source
> micromanufacturing machine tools, smelting furnaces etc. being
> developed by groups like Open Source Ecology, and tabletop CNC
> machinery being developed by the open hardware community more
> generally; open-source machinery like the tractors, compressed earth
> block machines, sawmills and so forth also being developed by OSE;
> small-scale intensive food production techniques like Permaculture;
> and so on.
> 
> I don't question that there are still many bottleneck technologies
> that require large scale and capital outlay -- microprocessors
> probably the most significant.
> 
> Railroads are another bottleneck industry.
> 
> I don't think electrical power generation is so much -- generating
> capability can be pretty well dispersed. And if photovoltaic
> generators still require larger, more capital-intensive facilities to
> produce, other kinds of renewable power -- wind, or using solar
> reflectors as heat source for a steam-powered generator -- are
> producible at the local level. I may be wrong --  I'm a layman on
> computer hardware issues -- but I think the hosting capability of
> server farms can be pretty widely distributed among many small
> facilities over a large area.
> 
> But to my mind the most important thing is that the *preponderance* of
> small-scale means of production for local consumption means a much
> smaller portion of the economy than in the past, and probably a much
> smaller portion in the near future than at present, will be critical
> bottlenecks subject to capitalist control.
> 
> And the fewer the bottlenecks, and the less time-sensitive they are
> (as a result of the increasing availability of expedients like
> reprogrammable micro-chips, recycling old hardware for functions
> where lower levels of processing capacity are sufficient, increasing
> cradle-to-cradle recycling of materials in landfills using local
> processing facilities like mini-mills, and less dependance on
> long-distance transportation in general thanks to economic
> relocalization), the more slack/insulation local economies will have
> for riding out periods of impasse before they actually have to be
> restocked from the remaining bottlenecks. That means the bottlenecks,
> while still remaining, will provide a lot less leverage.
> 
> Not saying there won't be a final phase of violence at the last stage
> of the transition as the most critical remaining centralized stuff
> changes hands, but it will probably be a lot smaller in scale and
> with a vastly shifted correlation of forces -- a mopping-up operation
> against capitalist-state forces that have already been strategically
> outmaneuvered.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Jakob Rigi <RigiJ at ceu.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Firs, what are these technologies? (I am just curious and do not
> > question the possibility of such technologies).
> >
> > Second, what do we do with satellites-we need them for
> > communication- and other communication infrastructure, trains,
> > railways, ships, ports, aeroplanes,   airports,  power plants that
> > produce electricity, computing server farms, etc.
> >
> >
> > For peer production becoming the dominant mode of production these
> > infrastructures along the nature-earth must be transformed into
> > universal commons of humanity.  Therefore we need to expropriate
> > capitalists.
> >
> > Jakob
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* NetworkedLabour
> > <networkedlabour-bounces at lists.contrast.org> on behalf of Kevin
> > Carson <free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> *Sent:* 17 June 2016
> > 11:54 *To:* Jakob Rigi
> > *Cc:* networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org; p2p-foundation
> > *Subject:* Re: [NetworkedLabour] A note on the post-capitalist
> > strategy of the P2P Foundation
> >
> > The autonomist argument is that new, radically cheapening and
> > ephemeral production technologies are rendering accumulation and
> > capital-intensiveness increasingly irrelevant, so that human social
> > relationships are replacing costly physical capital as a source of
> > productivity. Technologies like small-scale open-source CNC
> > machinery, Permaculture, etc., are making it possible to shift a
> > growing share of production into the social or informal sphere of
> > production for use or production by worker cooperatives, with
> > radically smaller capital outlays than older models of production.
> > So Exodus becomes a viable alternative to direct assault aimed at
> > seizing control of the old hierarchies. Bypass them and let them
> > rot instead.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Michel Bauwens
> > <michel at p2pfoundation.net> wrote:
> > > 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
> > Commons Transition - Commons TransitionCommons Transition
> > <http://commonstransition.org/>
> > commonstransition.org
> > Commons Transition showcases practical experiences and policy
> > proposals for a more humane and environmentally grounded mode of
> > societal organization.
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> 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
> >
> 
> 
> 