<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Michel Bauwens</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michelsub2004@gmail.com">michelsub2004@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:14 AM<br>Subject: Launch on a debate on p2p and marxism (and specifically the role of the state and civil society)<br>To: p2p-foundation <<a href="mailto:p2p-foundation@lists.ourproject.org">p2p-foundation@lists.ourproject.org</a>><br>
Cc: jean lievens <<a href="mailto:jean.lievens@base.be">jean.lievens@base.be</a>>, Walton Pantland <<a href="mailto:waltonp@gmail.com">waltonp@gmail.com</a>>, George Papanikolaou <<a href="mailto:georgepapani@gmail.com">georgepapani@gmail.com</a>>, Vasilis Kostakis <<a href="mailto:kostakis.b@gmail.com">kostakis.b@gmail.com</a>>, "Dafermos, George" <<a href="mailto:g.n.dafermos@tudelft.nl">g.n.dafermos@tudelft.nl</a>>, <a href="mailto:orsan@tie-netherlands.nl">orsan@tie-netherlands.nl</a>, Roberto Verzola <<a href="mailto:rverzola@gn.apc.org">rverzola@gn.apc.org</a>>, Raoul <<a href="mailto:raoulv@club-internet.fr">raoulv@club-internet.fr</a>>, Johan S�derberg <<a href="mailto:johan.soderberg@sts.gu.se">johan.soderberg@sts.gu.se</a>><br>
<br><br>Jean Lievens has launched the first contribution of what should be an interesting debate,<br><br>here at <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/p2p-and-marxism-in-search-of" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/p2p-and-marxism-in-search-of</a>? (see excerpt below)<br>
<br>I think we can subdivise the debate in a number of big topical chunks, so thanks for making an effort to specify where exactly you are intervening, by using these subheadings<br><br>- the historical failure of socialism and the continued dominance of capitalism<br>
<br>- the general relationship between marxism and p2p as theoretical and political approaches<br><br>- the general relationship between p2p movements and social movements, in particular the labour movement<br><br>- the role of the state, and the attitude to it<br>
<br>- the role of civil society, and the attitude to it<br><br>If you want to join this debate, you can do so here, but I also urge to post or repost the more substantial contributions, for eventual later publication, here at<br>
<br><a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/p2p-and-marxism-launching-the" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/p2p-and-marxism-launching-the</a><br><br>- the role of the commons<br><br>
- the role of capitalism and the market<br>
<br>- the contemporary nature of human emancipation<br><br><br><br><div>
<div><br><a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/network-robustness-and-the-next-net/2011/03/01" rel="prev" target="_blank"></a></div>
</div>
<p><a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=14367" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Debating the role of the state and civil
society in P2P Theory" target="_blank">Debating the role of the state and civil society
in P2P Theory</a></p>
<img src="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/wp-content/uploads/avatars/Michel%20Bauwens.jpg" alt="photo of Michel Bauwens" align="left"><div>Michel
Bauwens</div>
<div>4th March 2011</div>
<br>
<p>A in-depth contribution by Jean Lievens, who addresses a number
of important issues in our p2p approach. The full version of Jean�s
contribution is <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/p2p-and-marxism-in-search-of?" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p><b>Jean Lievens:</b></p>
<p>�The very idea of changing society has suffered an enormous blow
because of what happened after the Russian Revolution. Although the
murderous regimes in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Eastern Europe� had
nothing to do with �socialism� or �Marxism�, it was in their name that
millions of people perished. One can therefore argue that very term
socialism should better not be used anymore. On the other hand in
Europe, socialism is also associated with the positive idea of the
welfare state, although the right stresses the negative features such as
bureaucracy, hierarchy and waste as an excuse for cutting state
expenditure. Therefore the idea of �something new�, a new idea for a new
century, can hit a cord. In terminology, there is a clear link between
the terms used by the left and those by the P2P movement: commonism
(communism), the commons (communes), etc.</p>
<p>These ideas are however not known within the labour movement, that is
historically the main driving force behind civil liberties and social
justice. As far as I understand the ideas of P2P at the present, I think
they will play a crucial role in the transition to a new global
society, which could not have been foreseen by Marx or any other
�classic� socialist thinker for the very simple reason that these new
technologies did not exist. If this future society will be called
�socialist� is of secondary importance. But what is important is that it
should be more just, equal and �happy� than the present capitalist
order witch is untenable anyways. </p>
<p>I do not think however that the transition will be gradual or
unnoticed by the ruling elites. I think the organized working (or
middle) class has of course a key role to play. I think that more
clarity is needed on the question of nations and the state. I think that
the question of private ownership of the commanding heights of the
economy and the relationship between this notion and �the commons� (or
an expansion of it) needs to be resolved, and I think that the
fundamentals of democracy, meaning exercising control over ones own
destiny politically, socially and economically, needs to be deepened.</p>
<p>I think there are any overlaps between traditional Marxism and P2P,
but as I am more familiar with Marxism than with P2P, I�d like to start
with some comments and questions on Michel Bauwens� article �the new
triarchy: the commons, enterprise, the state�.</p>
<p>P2P is defined as the ability to freely associate around the creation
of common value. Can it also be considered as the basis for a new mode
of production? The development of the Internet and of networked
infrastructures gave rise to all sorts of �free associations�,
including a new type of businesses. Many of them were not �planned�, but
developed �spontaneously� as a result of voluntary contributions of
thousands and even millions (Wikipedia, Flickr, Twitter, YouTube,
Facebook�). On the other hand, we witness the integration of new
technologies and P2P production in existing large corporations, finding
in some cases a �second life� (IBM, Lego�).</p>
<p>A free association of people creating common value is of course
nothing new and is proper to civil society: trade unions, political
organisations, charity organisations based on gifts and volunteers,
hobby clubs, etc. What is new is the �digital commons� allowing people
from all over the world to contribute and share on an unprecedented
scale, eroding national and nationalistic barriers.</p>
<p>As I am not familiar with the structural anthropology of Alan Page
Fiske, my understanding of the commons is based on what I found on
Wikipedia:</p>
<p>�The commons were traditionally defined as the elements of the
environment � forests, atmosphere, rivers, fisheries or grazing land �
that are shared, used and enjoyed by all. Today, the commons are also
understood within a cultural sphere. These include literature, music,
arts, design, film, video, television, radio, information, software and
sites of heritage. The commons can also include �public goods� such as
public space, public education, health and the infrastructure that
allows our society to function (such as electricity or water delivery
systems). There also exists the �life commons�, e.g. the human genome.</p>
<p>The Ecologist refers to the commons as �the social and political
space where things get done and where people have a sense of belonging
and have an element of control over their lives�, providing �sustenance,
security and independence�.</p>
<p>There are a number of important features that can be used to describe
true commons. The first is that true commons cannot be commodified �
and if they are � they cease to be commons. The second aspect is that
while they are neither public nor private they tend to be managed by
local communities and cannot be exclusionary. That is, they cannot have
borders built around them otherwise they become private property. The
third aspect of the commons is that, unlike resources, they are not
scarce but abundant. If managed properly, they work to overcome
scarcity.</p>
<p>Michel writes: It is customary to divide society into three sectors,
and what we want to show is how the new peer to peer dynamic unleashed
by networked infrastructures, changes the inter-relationship between
these three sectors.</p>
<p>The division of society in three sectors: the �public� (or state)
sector, the private sector and civil society is indeed customary amongst
sociologists, including Marxists academics. However, there are many
definitions of civil society. Here�s what Wikipedia says on Civil
Society and Marx:</p>
<p>�For Marx, civil society was the �base� where productive forces and
social relations were taking place, whereas political society was the
�superstructure�. Agreeing with the link between capitalism and civil
society, Marx held that the latter represents the interests of the
bourgeoisie. Therefore, the state as superstructure also represents the
interests of the dominant class; under capitalism, it maintains the
domination of the bourgeoisie. Hence, Marx rejected the positive role of
state put forth by Hegel. Marx argued that the state couldn�t be a
neutral problem solver. Rather, he depicted the state as the defender of
the interests of the bourgeoisie. He considered the state and civil
society as the executive arms of the bourgeoisie; therefore, both should
wither away.�</p>
<p>Gramsci rectified this negative view about civil society. He did not
consider civil society as coterminous with the socio-economic base of
the state. Rather, Gramsci located civil society in the political
superstructure. He underlined the crucial role of civil society as the
contributor of the cultural and ideological capital required for the
survival of the hegemony of capitalism. Rather than posing it as a
problem, as in earlier Marxist conceptions, Gramsci viewed civil society
as the site for problem solving. Agreeing with Gramsci, the New Left
assigned civil society a key role in defending people against the state
and the market and in asserting the democratic will to influence the
state. At the same time, Neo-liberal thinkers consider civil society as a
site for struggle to subvert Communist and authoritarian regimes. Thus,
the term civil society occupies an important place in the political
discourses of the New Left and Neo-liberals. </p>
<p>So, what definition are we considering here? The same clarification
is needed for �the state� and �the private sector�. Michel writes:</p>
<p>In the current �cognitive capitalist� system, it is the private
sector consisting of enterprises and businesses which is the primary
factor, and it is engaged in competitive capital accumulation. The state
is entrusted with the protection of this process. Though civil society,
through the citizen, is in theory �sovereign�, and chooses the state;
in practice, both civil society and the state are under the domination
of the private sector. ??</p>
<p>This is in line with the Marxist view on the state as a �capitalist�
state, defending in the last resort the interests of capitalism or the
�private sector�. Also the assumption that civil society and the state
are under the domination of the private sector does not contradict
traditional Marxist thought. Does, however, civil society �choose the
state�? It has, as Chomsky point out, in contradiction to the tyranny of
corporations, at least some influence on the state through the
electoral process. Only in that sense civil society exercise some
influence on how the state and state institutions are run. In other
words, civil society chooses (mainly indirectly) the government
(executive power) through the election of representatives in parliament
(the legislative power), who in their turn, again in theory, control the
state apparatus. I consider the state as a �hybrid�, composed on the
one hand of a �public sector�, that takes care of education, public
transport, health care, housing -the so-called welfare state- and is led
by bureaucrats under the control of elected officials, and on the other
hand an instrument of coercion, with the police, the army� also led by
bureaucrats controlled by elected politicians, and the juridical system
(the �third power�). Is this view in contradiction with the above
statement?</p>
<p>Of course, this is not to say that the state is a mere tool of
private business. In my view, it fulfils three contradictory functions.
One is the protect the whole system, under the domination of private
business, and this is determined by a balance of power not only between
different private business sectors, but also by the social balance of
power between business and civil society, capital and labour.</p>
<p>I agree with the assumption that the state protects the whole system
under the domination of private business, but it could be considered as a
static view. The subsequent statement adds a dynamic element suggesting
shifts in the different balances of power. In my view, this statement
is consistent with the Marxist theory on class struggle (in a very broad
sense): </p>
<p>It is only when this balance of power is severely disturbed, that the
state either becomes a private tool of some dominant business clique,
or, can become relatively independent, as in the case of the fascist
state. ?</p>
<p>According to Marxism, the balance of power is severely disturbed on
the basis of antagonistic interests between different classes in
society, leading to class struggle. Does the triarchy model acknowledge
the class structure of society, or does it reject it? The fascist state
became indeed relatively independent, although it defended in the last
resort the interests of private ownership. But what about the former
(and present) Stalinist states? Does Michel�s model consider those
states as sort of �private tool of labour� that became relatively
independent? Marxism talks about the class nature of the state based on
the property relations that it defends. So fascism, defending in the
last resort capitalist property relations, is in that sense the opposite
of Stalinism, defending in the last resort public ownership, despite
the overwhelming similarities between the two systems. </p>
<p>So, to the first function of being the protector of the total system
under domination of capital, we should add two added functions. It is
the protector of civil society, depending on the balance of power and
achievements of social movements. And finally it is also the protector
of its own independent interests. ??</p>
<p>This statement is valid for capitalist systems, but not for the
former Stalinist states (North Korea, Cuba�), including China and
Vietnam, unless we agree with the assumption that those states were or
are state capitalist. I do not agree with this idea since private
ownership of the means of production was abolished and the economy in
those states did not follow the rules of the market. So I find it
difficult to consider those states, including present-day China and
Vietnam, as the protectors of the total system under the domination of
capital. In addition, what does �the protector of civil society� mean,
depending on the balance of power and achievements of social movements?
The state in its capacity of an instrument of coercion and repression is
often challenged by �civil society�, so how can it be considered as
�the protector� of it? I think it is correct that the state, even under
�normal� circumstances, has its own independent interests to defend,
although between certain limits, depending on the level of democratic
control over it. </p>
<p>We have historically seen three scenarios in the 20th century. Under
fascism, the state achieves great independence from the private sector,
which may become subservient to the state. Under the welfare state, the
state becomes a protector of the social balance of power and manages the
achievements of the social movement; and finally, under the neoliberal
corporate welfare state, or �market state�, it serves most directly the
interests of the financial sector. ??</p>
<p>I have no disagreement with this statement, although we need to
approach these types in a dynamic way. The welfare state is
continuously under attack, social gains are eroded, with the help of the
same state that is supposed to protect and manage the achievements of
the social movements. What we saw, in the last 25 years, was a gradual
evolution from a �welfare state� (Western Europe) to a �marker state�
(USA). Again, the �communist� states (Russia, China and 35 other
states, accounting for 1/3 of the world population) are left out in this
article (but I have read other material on this issue from Michel since
and will come back on it later).</p>
<p>Each sector also had its key institutions and forms of property. The
state managed a public sector, under its own property. The private
sector, under a regime of private ownership, is geared to profit,
discounts social and natural externalities, both positive and negative,
and uses its dominance in society to use and dominate the state. Civil
society has a certain power through the mechanisms of civil society, but
the great majority of its members are in a disadvantaged position
because it lacks ownership of the means of production. ??</p>
<p>The first sentence is written in the passed sense, the others in the
present. I suppose this is an unintended error, otherwise it would seem
that the state does not manage the public sector anymore. Secondly, is a
private sector not by definition operating under a regime of private
ownership, or is it, in a system of public ownership (communism), where
there is a private sector operating (NEP under Lenin, China�), not
geared to profit?</p>
<p>In general, I think that the division of society into three sectors,
the state, the private sector and civil society hides the class nature
of society (based on the ownership of means of production). It puts all
the beans in the same basket of �civil society�. I think that one of the
main features of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of
production and the profit motive. Capitalist property relations are in
my opinion the main obstacles for the free development of P2P, as I
understand it. In that sense, it would seem to confirm the old
assumption of Marx as presented in the �Preface� to A Contribution to
the Critique of Political Economy. Marx assumes that the levels of
productive forces are dynamic, and will eventually outgrow the capacity a
given set of relations of production to sustain that growth. To give
just one quote:</p>
<p>�At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of
society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or
-this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms- with the property
relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto.
>From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn
into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes
in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation
of the whole immense superstructure.�</p>
<p>According to this theory, the contradiction between the forces of
production and the relations of production eventually leads to
revolutionary change. This statement can be and often has been
interpreted in a deterministic manner, or as a pre-condition for
revolutionary change. The revolutionary movements of 68 took place
during the height of the post-war boom; revolutionary upsurges in
Eastern Europe took place while the economy was growing rapidly. I do
not think that these movements were defeated (or did not change the
superstructure) because conditions were not �ripe� because the
productive forces were still developing.</p>
<p>However, civil society has a relative power as well, through its
capability of creating social movements and associations. Amongst those
are religious institutions, civil associations, political parties, the
labour movement, identity and sectoral movements, and since the 1960�s
mostly, issue-oriented non-profits. In the context of industrial and
cognitive capitalism, natural resource commons slowly disappeared, and
the institution of the commons became a non-player, in the dual struggle
between the private and the state sector, influenced by the relative
strength or weakness of civil society and its movements.</p>
<p>Capitalism has historically been a pendulum between the private and
the public sector, and the commons mostly irrelevant in the struggles
for more or less state intervention. ??</p>
<p>I doubt that capitalism historically has been �a pendulum between the
private and public sector�. I think there has been a general trend in
the direction of an ever-increasing public sector, although this needs
to be confirmed by facts and figures. The private sector needs �big
government� and uses it in its own interests. But at the same time, the
state is also a big burden on the private sector in terms of taxation.
Therefore in the last 25 or 30 years, the neoliberals tried to reduce
the state sector through cuts and privatisations, but they did not
succeed in cutting the size of it substantially (for example in the US
there was a huge increase in defence expenditure). What the state saves
in social expenditure is partially compensated by an increase of
expenditure for security (prisons, police, courts�). It boils down to
the traditional Keynesian choice between canons or butter.</p>
<p>According to Michel, the experience of creating knowledge, culture,
software and design commons, by a combination of voluntary
contributions, entrepreneurial coalitions and infrastructure-protecting
for-benefit associations, has most tangibly re-introduced the idea of
commons, for all to use without discrimination, and where all can
contribute �It has drastically reduced the production, distribution,
transaction and coordination costs for the immaterial value that is at
the core also of all what we produce physically, since that needs to be
made, needs to be designed. It has re-introduced communing as a
mainstream experience for at least one billion internet users, and has
come with proven benefits and robustness that has outcompeted and
outcooperated its private rivals. It also of course offers new ways to
re-imagine, create and protect physical commons.� ??</p>
<p>This is the essence of the �digital commons� as I understand it. I do
believe that these new models are superior to its private rivals, but
the question is also that these private rivals use the digital commons
more and more into their own private interests, and quit successfully. I
think that the development of the �digital commons� could be considered
as a higher stage in what Marxism refers to as the socialisation of
labour. This point needs to be developed further, but in my opinion, P2P
activities through global digital networks can be considered as a
higher form of social labour, voluntary and spontaneously �organised�
and leading to unplanned but superior �business models�. The question
here is: will this lead to a sort of �new economy� within the old, just
as European capitalism developed under feudal conditions until it was
strong enough to �overthrow� it, or will this development be integrated
into the present capitalist word order?</p>
<p>The combined failure of state fundamentalism in 1989 and so-called
�free market� ideology in 2008, coupled with the emergence of the peer
to peer practices and the commons, has put this alternative back on the
agenda. ??</p>
<p>State fundamentalism is an interesting description of the failed
planned economies under �communism� that I don�t necessarily reject.
Also, the collapse of the international financial system followed by the
Great Recession was a big blow to the neoliberal ideology. Both systems
have indeed failed and that opens up new possibilities.</p>
<p>Peer production gives us an advance picture of how a commons-oriented
society would look like. At its core is a commons and a community
contributing to it, either voluntarily, or as paid entrepreneurial
employees. It does this through collaborative platforms using open
standards. Around the commons emerge enterprises that create added value
to operate on the marketplace, but also help the maintenance and the
expansion of the commons they rely on. A third partner are the
for-benefit associations that maintain the infrastructure of
cooperation. Public authorities could play a role if they wanted to
support existing commons or the creation of new commons, for the value
they bring to society.</p>
<p>Let�s accept this model of a future commons-orientated society. It is
a novel idea that breaks with the conventional perspectives of
socialism and needs further thought. It solves some issues, but raises
also a lot of questions. The first one is: how do we get to this
commons-orientated society? Will it be a �spontaneous� or gradual
evolution within present society? Will capitalist corporations be
�outcompeted� by P2P based production? How will the state, as a defender
of private ownership dominated by the private sector, react to this
development? What about the present state structures? What about the
political system? What about the international institutions?</p>
<p>Non- or anti-rival commons do not need to worry about the depletion
of their stocks, so no trusts are necessary, but they use peer property
modalities such as special licenses, which insure the common stock
cannot be privatized, and that those that use the commons and improve on
it, also improve the commons at the same time. But commons of rival or
depletable goods need a trust. ??</p>
<p>To accomplish this, a whole new set of regulations will be needed,
nationally and internationally. So the question arises: how will this be
accomplished politically? Will it be done through new political parties
(such as the pirate party), through existing ones (social democracy,
greens, liberals�), or through pressure groups?</p>
<p>Then we arrive at Michel�s new model of the triarchy:</p>
<p> * The state, with its public property and representative
mechanisms of governance (in the best scenario)<br>
* The private sector, with the corporation and private property<br>
* The commons, with the Trust (or the for-benefit association), and
which is the �property� of all its members (not the right word in the
context of the commons, since it has a different philosophy of
ownership)</p>
<p>Here I have some additional questions. What happened with the former
civil society? It seems here to be replaced by the commons. Is there a
parallel between the commons (which is the property of all its members)
with cooperatives? The idea of the cooperative movement was to
outcompete capitalist firms, building a new type of organisation where
profits are distributed amongst its members or co-proprietors.</p>
<p>The emergence of peer-to-peer dynamics and the commons does not of
course mean that society will change radically from the outset. I
believe some different phases can be contemplated.?</p>
<p>It seems to me that the idea, in general, is that a new type of mode
of production, based on P2P dynamics, is in the making within present
capitalist society and that legal forms are proposed or introduced to
protect the (digital) commons against appropriation by the private
sector. We see on the one hand new private firms emerging (Google,
Facebook, YouTube, Flickr�) taking advantage of the free contribution of
millions of volunteers (art creators, software developers�), creating
global platforms generating millions of dollars through all sorts of
commercial activity, but mainly advertising. On the other hand,
traditional private corporations use digital networks and appeal to the
input of knowledge from �outside� to develop their products further or
launch new ones (Lego, BMW�). And thirdly, there is Wikipedia, Wikileaks
and other non-commercial P2P organisations relying on non-paid
volunteer work (for example civil journalists�) financed by gifts or
charity. I think that in that sense, there is nothing new within the
capitalist system, except from the fact that from a technological point
of view, social labour has reached a qualitatively higher stage.</p>
<p>In a first phase, the commons simply emerges as an added alternative.
But as it proves it worth and creates the accompanying social movements
that create, defend and expand it, it starts becoming a subsector of
society, and starts influencing the whole. Eventually, it reaches a
phase where society needs to be reformed (let�s call this the parity
level). However, it is not realistic that the state form that was
created to protect a given class structure, can also serve for a new
structure, and therefore at some point, phase transition and
transformation will need to occur.</p>
<p>If I understand correctly, the further development of �the commons�
will reach a point where a reform or transformation of society and the
state structure will be necessary. There seems to be a clear parallel
here with Marxist thought, where the working class seems to be replaced
by the commons? The million-dollar question is off course: how will this
phase transition and transformation occur? What will be the social and
political forces behind it?</p>
<p>Let us now imagine how a commons-dominated, i.e. after the phase
transition, society would look like.</p>
<p> * At its core would be a collection of commons, represented by
trusts and for-benefit associations, which protect their common assets
for the benefit of present and future generations<br>
* The commons �rents out� the use of its resources to entrepreneurs.
In other words, business still exists, though infinite growth-based
capitalism does not. However, it is unlikely that traditional
corporations, who do not take into account externalities, will still
exist without modification. More likely is that the corporate forms will
be influenced by the commons and that profit will be subsumed to other
goals, that are congruent with the maintenance of the commons. Also
likely, these entities will be owned by the producers, and not by
abstract capital (we�re talking after the phase transition here)<br>
* The state will still exist, but will have a radically different
nature. Much of its functions will have been taken over by commons
institutions, but since these institutions care primarily about their
commons, and not the general common good, we will still need public
authorities that are the guarantor of the system as a whole, and can
regulate the various commons, and protect the commoners against possible
abuses. So in our scenario, the state does not disappear, but is
transformed, though it may greatly diminish in scope, and with its
remaining functions thoroughly democratized and based on citizen
participation.</p>
<p>This model looks like a kind of Utopia, although it is rooted in the
existence of the commons and a vision for its further development. I do
not necessarily reject this vision. In fact, it seems more valid than
the idea of a �socialist market economy�, based upon the socialisation
of the means of production through the distribution of shares amongst
the population (eventually represented by �tokens� that cannot be sold
on the market).</p>
<p>In addition, given the fact that the two main currents within the
labour movement, �communism� and the planned economy on the one hand,
and social democracy and the welfare state on the other -although both
formally based on Marxism- are in a blind alley, capitalism is perceived
more then ever as the natural order of things: �there is no
alternative�. Despite the huge ideological differences, the state plays a
crucial role in both models.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that the labour movement is ideologically in a blind
alley, it continues to fight to defend its interests. However, in the
last 25 or 30 years, it was mainly engaged in defensive struggles and
did not fight for better conditions and more democracy. Marx had no
clear vision of the future socialist society. He did not put forward a
blueprint, but relied on the self-organisation of the working class as
the new leading force in society. A lot of Marx�s predictions did not
materialise, laying the basis for different revisionist theories.</p>
<p>That changed with the Russian Revolution and the abolition of market
relations in the Soviet Union (and later also in other countries). Until
1989, despite all the crimes of those regimes, they represented at
least experiments of a new form of society. Many in the labour movement
in the West, including social democrats, hoped for a �democratisation�
of these societies. However, since 1989, the main trend was towards a
weak form of bourgeois democracy, the restoration of capitalist property
relations and the �free� market.</p>
<p>Since the failure of the Soviet experiment, I think we need to return
to the original idea of �self-organisation� of the working class by
Marx (defined as wage earners = a very broad definition), but this does
not mean that there is no need for a vision of a future society. Can
Michel�s model serve in this way? I think the ecological movement, the
P2P movement, and the labour movement have common interests and need to
develop a sort of common �programme� or �platform�. Traditional Marxism
is in my opinion far too much concentrated on materialistic gains,
economic growth and the rest of it. I think these ideas developed after
Marx� death, especially after the Russian revolution and the development
of the planned economies. So in that sense, I think we can find more
inspiration in the writings of Marx himself (especially the �young
Marx�) and the left critics of the so-called �dictatorship of the
proletariat� in Russia after 1917, like Rosa Luxemburg. It is not
because they lost that they were completely wrong.�</p><br clear="all"><font color="#888888"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>� - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br><br><br><br><br>
</font></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>� - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br><br><br><br><br>