<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Jakob Rigi</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rigij@ceu.edu">rigij@ceu.edu</a>></span><br>Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:17 AM<br>Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] Corbyn<br>To: <a href="mailto:bob.haugen@gmail.com">bob.haugen@gmail.com</a><br>Cc: <a href="mailto:networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org">networkedlabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br><br><br><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Hi Bob.<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hi Bob,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">We can reach there by <i>critically building</i> on what <i>we</i>
have so far <i>achieved</i>. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Who
is the we</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">? Answer: The current and in the making anti-capitalist
social movements and individuals.
Although I am very critical of Hard and Negri’s theory of capitalism I think that
we can borrow the term multitude from them to name the we. We are the
multitude: The multitude of exploited, the repressed, and the rebellious. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">What
do we have achieved so far? </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">We have achieved three
major things: <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1) We have invented a new form of political
organisation, that is the organisation through de-centered networks which is
far more democratic and horizontal compared with previous top-down
organisation. One should not counter-pose this new form of organization to
face- to-face locally based organizational form since they supplement each
other. This new form of organization should be counter-posed to old form of
top-down structures of parties and unions. So the whole problem of organising
through the net versus grass root activism is a false problem. Grass root,
local and face to face activism and organisations converge into a larger
force,-organization through horizontally connecting with each other through the
internet and other means . I know that horizontalism has been validly critiqued
but still want to keep the word horizontal to distinguish this new form of
organisation from the old party and union
form. Horizontalism should be
critiqued and modified not discarded.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2- Our second major achievement has been to overcome
the identity politics. In the wake of
crises of social democracy and the Stalinism accentuated by 1968 identity politics became hegemonic among the
left. One only was concerned with cultural-symbolic identities of local nature.
One only fought in her own local corner. Very concepts such as capitalism and
anti-capitalist struggle were dismissed as totalitarian and essentializing. The
new movement starting by Zapatisto rebellion of 1994, continuing through
Seattle 1999 and many other similar protests and peaking in 2011 completely
changed this in two ways. First, it identified capitalism as the common enemy;
second, it put forward the slogan another world is possible. The new movement
combined the best aspects of the old left and identity politics. Like the old
left they defined a common enemy namely capitalism and a common goal namely the
other possible world. Like identity politics it celebrated difference. It was a
unity in difference.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3- The third achievement has been the invention of
common based peer production. Now the first two achievements being aspects of
the same movement have a common history. The history of common-based peer
production, on the other hand, only partially coincides with the history of the
two other achievements and this happens to be to source of one of our major
weaknesses. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">These achievements produced in relatively short
periods of time (since 1994 in the case of first two ones an in the case of peer production since 1984
when Richard Stallman launched(GNU//GPL) are immense. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Yet</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">
we <i>suffer </i>from the three following <i>major weaknesses. </i><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1-<i>Lack of a program</i>.
While these movements courageously launched the slogan “ a new world is
possible” activists had and still have a
very vague notion of the contours of this possible world. Reformists took this
new world to be a return to Keynesianism , a modified capitalism; more radical
sections of the movement of anarchist or
autonomist bent claimed that our
practice prefigures what to come and
when it comes we will know its shape. So, their attitude was, don’t bother
about it now and let’s us only rehearse democracy and horizontalism. This
theatrical practice would necessarily fail to attract millions of ordinary
people. Since these people do not confuse theatre with life. The irony was that the outline of this new
society was already given in peer production. The political movement was
somehow peer produced (the whole rehearsal and practices of horizontalism and
democracy was a form of peer production of politics) but it failed to
understand historical significance of peer production and to consciously adopt
it as its program for change and present it as an alternative to
capitalism. So our first task is to craft a program with
peer production as its core. Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Kostakis should be
lauded four attempting to craft a program; but, they do not tell us how the major
means of production namely land and other strategic means of production can be
transformed into commons. I have a more detailed picture of my own version of
this program which is not possible to discuss here. The crafting of this
program must be a collective work. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2- And this brings us to the second major weakness
of our movements which is <i>the fear of
taking power and expropriating the expropriators</i>. This fear and incapacity
was elevated to a virtue not only by anarchists but also by major Marxist
radical thinkers most notably Alan Badiou, John Holloway and Antonio Negri. In
spite of their differences all three argued that we do not need to touch the
state. Negri was arguing that the multitude was creating communism
independently from state and capital. Anarchists and these thinkers shared the
following proposal: We don’t care about capital and state, we build our own
life autonomously form state and capital. But how can you do that when the earth
as the principle productive force is already owned by capitalists? Are you
going to produce another earth? Or migrate to another planet? The autonomist
exodus from capital can be only an exodus to another planet, since capital has
conquered all aspects of life on the earth.
Earth must be free from capital, but capitalist character of the earth
is guaranteed by the state. No autonomous life is possible unless we free the
earth from capital and therefore must confront its guardian namely the state.
To make a long story short the expropriation of capitalists and abolishing of
their state must be a major plank of our program. Related to this we should
present the peer to peer form of governmentally which is already operative in
both peer production and social movements as a new form of governance. This,
while not a state, is an adequate form of governance on all levels (local,
regional and global). I call the fear of taking power and expropriating
capitalists as a Soviet syndrome. Things did not go wrong in the USSR and
elsewhere because they took the power and expropriated capitalists but for the
reason that the new power perpetuated the class rule in a new guise. So it is
time to put an end to the Soviet syndrome. And in this point our program is
different from that of Syriza’s and Corbyn’s who entertain the delusion that
they can conquer the capitalist state from the inside and then use it for
socialising means of production. So, they are “Stalinists” in a new guise,
since they are statists. Their socialism
will be inevitably a form of capitalism or a new class rule. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3- Our third weakness which also has to do with the
Soviet or more correctly a Leninist syndrome namely the syndrome of vanguard
party was our aversion to <i>political
organization</i>. The aversion of activists towards corrupt/authoritarian Stalinist and social democratic parties and
related forms of unionism, and top-down structures of Trotskist and Maoists
parties which foster conformism are certainly justified. Yet, the necessity of
a political organisation like the First International is indispensible for
advancing an anti-capitalist revolutionary struggle. The main aspects of this
organisation are : a) its program; and b) its form. Its form is must be that of
peer production. It must be a distributed network of distributed networks. In a
way the movements so far have invented this form. What is lacking is continuity
in both time and space. We need an organisation which globally unify around a
common program and consciously continues to exist in order to propagate the
revolutionary program. Its permanence and its global reach are important. How,
its different sections coordinate their actions and relations is an open
question and is up to them. Each section can modify the general program as it
fits its own conditions and interests. Yet, the universal and long term
interests of the movement as a whole must come first.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Now let’s assume that we have the program and the
organisation. Then how do we proceed towards our final goal?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> The answer is: by participating in and being
part of all small and big progressive struggles on all corner of the planet,
supporting their progressive sides and critiquing their limitations. Propagating
our program among participants, we shall try to convince them to adopt it as
their own, to modify it and to develop it further. And we will learn from them
and accordingly change our program and organisation. Expanding peer producing
communities and supporting them will be a major aspect of our activism. But
this should be a component of a political revolutionary struggle and not merely
a form of entrepreneurial activity that aims at making profit. For example those
of us who live in the UK should support Corbyn’s candidacy and reforms that he
proposes but explain to people that these reforms although good do not change
the nature of capital and its corresponding oligarchy. We need a social
revolutions that abolishes capital and state and establishes peer production
and the will of multitude. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Now, assume that we have a global well entrenched
organisation which consists of thousands of smaller organisations which is
supported by millions of people in different countries. And assume further that
in a country where most social movements are united around our program which
enjoys the support of the majority of population there is a revolutionary
situation. Revolutionary situation is a situation in which the ruler cannot
rule as they used to rule and the ruled do not submit to their rule anymore. In
this situation mobilising the broadest number of people we will occupy not
merely parks and squares but the main sites of economic and political power.
Will abolish private property and the state and replace them with peer to peer
forms of the production of goods, meaning and social relation. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">What is the difference of this form of take-over of
power with that of Syriza’s and Corbyn’s. They do not question the premises and
the legitimacy of the capitalist state which is an oligarchical form, since, it
is money that decides. (Just look how APEC is sabotaging Obama’s nuclear treaty
with Iran by publishing ads and bribing journalists and intimidating congress
men. Obama recently confessed that he found himself powerless against the power
of money.) Then, they think that they will try to outsmart capitalists and
change this oligarchical state to a socialist one. A project that social
democracy tried and failed. The crashing of Syriza by German bankers is a good
lesson for those who think that they can outsmart capitalists on their own
playground. They can extract concessions from capitalists in certain
circumstances, and this is not a bad thing, but such concession will never
change either the nature of capitalist society or the oligarchical state. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In our case the new power is not a power in the
conventional sense but the materialisation of the collective will of the
multitude. It is a power to. It is only against only those ex exploiters who
try to revive the conditions of exploitation. Those ex exploiters who accept
the new order will be welcomed into it as anyone else. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p></div><div>Here i my answer to your question.</div><div>best</div><div>Jakob</div><br><div><br><div><br><br>>>> Bob Haugen <<a href="mailto:bob.haugen@gmail.com" target="_blank">bob.haugen@gmail.com</a>> 07/31/15 4:47 PM >>><br>Jakob, let's say I agree with what you wrote below (and I mostly do,<br>except I would not be so dismissive of other efforts), and I<br>definitely want to abolish capitalism. How do you think we can get<br>from here to there?<br><br>On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Jakob Rigi <<a href="mailto:rigij@ceu.edu" target="_blank">rigij@ceu.edu</a>> wrote:<br>> The idea that technological activism and isolated cooperatives will change<br>> capitalism into something different is a form of escapism. Class struggle as<br>> ever is the main source of change. And the core issue of class struggle is<br>> state power. But the questions are these:1) What is the form of working<br>> class state and how does it insert power ?<br>> 2) What are main measures for establishing socialism?<br>> My answers to these questions are: The state form is peer to peer<br>> organisation of people that produce goods, culture and politics. There are<br>> coordinators but no separate bureaucratic apparatus from which stands above<br>> producers. 2) The insertion of power takes place through consensual<br>> collective will of people: direct democracy. Its firsts tasks of working<br>> class' power are to abolish private property in general intellect, in<br>> land-nature, and in major means of production and making them commons.<br>> Did Syriza want to do these? Does Corbyn want to do these?<br>> I certainly support Corbyn and think the return of old labour, if it will<br>> happen, is good news. But, we do not need to forget that main problem we<br>> face is to abolish capitalism and not just extract concessions from it,<br>> though it is necessary to extract as much concession from it as we can.<br>> Daniel, what is your position on abolishing capitalism?<br>><br>> Jakob<br>><br>><br>>>>> Daniel Chavez <<a href="mailto:chavez@tni.org" target="_blank">chavez@tni.org</a>> 07/30/15 8:28 PM >>><br>><br>> Dear Christian,<br>><br>> I understand and fully agree with your points about Corbyn, the left and the<br>> significance of electoral politics despite Syriza, Yugoslavia and the many<br>> historical defeats that Peter Waterman might refer to. But I'm afraid this<br>> is no longer a debate or an open exchange of ideas. Some members of this<br>> list already ruled that the state, socialism and the left are dead and love<br>> to treat those of us who might disagree as stupids who just don't get it<br>> (well..., not explicitly, but close).<br>><br>> I also agree with your characterisation of Paul Mason's approach as<br>> techno-determinism (with no real social agency, I would add). I haven't read<br>> his book, but must confess about that I do agree with parts of his Guardian<br>> article, in particular his points about the role that governments should<br>> play supporting the transition (something that those who praise Mason's<br>> views as a way to justify their dismissal of the state apparently didn't<br>> see...).<br>><br>> I'm a 100% in favour of a commons-centred project, but that that doesn't<br>> mean that I will see my compañeros in left parties and even progressive<br>> governments (real or potential, as utopic as that might sound) as my<br>> enemies. On the contrary, I see them as essential allies in the struggle<br>> towards that emancipatory project.<br>><br>> Cheers,<br>><br>> Daniel<br>><br>><br>><br>>> El 30/7/2015, a las 15:02, Christian Fuchs <<a href="mailto:christian.fuchs@uti.at" target="_blank">christian.fuchs@uti.at</a>><br>>> escribió:<br>>><br>>> Does Corbyn oppose capitalism?<br>>> Decide yourself by listening e.g. to a short example argument by him about<br>>> socialism and capitalism:<br>>> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZvAvNJL-gE" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZvAvNJL-gE</a><br>>><br>>> Corbyn: "'From each according to their means, to each according to their<br>>> needs' is surely a very sensible, very basic principle in life"...<br>>><br>>> It is well know what kind of society Marx characterised with this<br>>> principle in the "Kritik des Gothaer Programms"...<br>>><br>>> Best, Christian<br>>><br>>>> On 7/30/15 18:33, Jakob Rigi wrote:<br>>>> Certainly movements and political parties should not put against each<br>>>> other. But questions that should be asked and answered are these: what<br>>>> are these parties and movements? What are their class bases? What are<br>>>> their goals and programs? Are they revolutionary or reformists? Are<br>>>> their form of organisation top-down or as horizontal as possible? I am<br>>>> not against reform but against reformism. If one has commons as a vision<br>>>> one need to relate t to all parties and movements from this angle. We<br>>>> need to always ask: Does this or that movement or party promote the<br>>>> advancement of anti-capitalist struggle? This is the main question. The<br>>>> question is about class struggle around private property in means of<br>>>> production and state and not facebook and google. What is Corbyn's<br>>>> attitude on state and property? Does he offer an anti-capitalist<br>>>> program? I don't think that anyone needs to oppose Corbyn. Ant it is<br>>>> certainly good if he become the leader of labour and it is good if the<br>>>> old labour is back to power. Do old labour and Corbyn want to abolish<br>>>> capitalism?<br>>>><br>>>> >>> Christian Fuchs <<a href="mailto:christian.fuchs@uti.at" target="_blank">christian.fuchs@uti.at</a>> 07/30/15 6:46 PM >>><br>>>> It doesn't help to set up a binary between movements and parties. On<br>>>> June 20, 250,000 people attended the "People's March against Austerity"<br>>>> in London and who was there as a speaker? Jeremy Corbyn. A couple of<br>>>> days later there was a solidarity protest at Trafelgar Square and guess<br>>>> who was speaking there... Stop the War Coalition, Campaign for Nuclear<br>>>> Disarmament, etc. The list of his social movement activities goes on...<br>>>> He is not simply an MP, but deeply connected to social movements. And<br>>>> social movements alone won't do...<br>>>><br>>>> This article by Hilary Wainwright is worth reading:<br>>>><br>>>> <a href="http://www.redpepper.org.uk/my-support-for-jeremy-corbyn-is-about-much-more-than-reclaiming-labour/" target="_blank">http://www.redpepper.org.uk/my-support-for-jeremy-corbyn-is-about-much-more-than-reclaiming-labour/</a><br>>>><br>>>> To wait that the Internet will bring about communism will not help. Paul<br>>>> Mason's "Postcapitalism" book is simply (again) techno-determinism (just<br>>>> like the one about the Arab spring as Facebook revolution that he wrote<br>>>> some years ago). We need not just technology, but poltical parties and<br>>>> social movements that struggle together for a framework that channels<br>>>> resources towards commons-based/commoning/etc. alternatives and supports<br>>>> them by progressive legislation.<br>>>><br>>>> Arguments like "Tsipras is a traitor", "Corbyn is the next Tsipras",<br>>>> etc. disregard who the real enemy is.<br>>>><br>>>> In the light of what the Tories are now doing in Britain and to so many<br>>>> people, who as a result will become poorer, more exploited and more<br>>>> excluded because society becomes more and more vicious, nasty and<br>>>> individualistic, it is nothing but cynical to say one should forget<br>>>> about Corbyn. Sitting back and waiting that the Internet downloads the<br>>>> revolution will not help. Setting up some online commons will not help<br>>>> and not be effective if there are not at the same time laws that limit<br>>>> the power of Facebook, Google, etc., the very companies that limit that<br>>>> online alternatives can be true alternatives. And for this purpose you<br>>>> need laws and a party in power. The same argument can be made for any<br>>>> realm of society, not just technology. We need alternative tech politics<br>>>> and policies just like we need alternative social politics and policies,<br>>>> alternative transport politics and policies, etc. etc. And for this a<br>>>> movement-party-dialectic around someone like Corbyn is much welcome,<br>>>> needed and desired.<br>>>><br>>>> Christian<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> It is cynic<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> The idea<br>>>><br>>>> On 7/30/15 17:00, <a href="mailto:anna@shsh.co.uk" target="_blank">anna@shsh.co.uk</a> wrote:<br>>>> > I think, Peter, it is not either/or. The fact that so many in the UK<br>>>> > have risen to the call, even though it may get stamped on by Labour<br>>>> > Party bureaucrats, shows there is not total apathy among the<br>>>> > electorate.<br>>>> > Were he elected, what he could achieve is a big question. But assuredly<br>>>> > I would prefer to see him there than any of the others. Which since up<br>>>> > to now there has been no choice, is really something. So I go along<br>>>> > with<br>>>> > Bob in appreciating that Tsipras was elected, and Obama, although<br>>>> > little<br>>>> > actually changed. And I agree with him that all these little shifts may<br>>>> > add up to something.<br>>>> ><br>>>> > And I agree with you that the real investment of energy should still<br>>>> > continue to be building the alternative.<br>>>> ><br>>>> > Anna<br>>>> ><br>>>> ><br>>>> ><br>>>> > On 30 Jul 2015, at 16:41, peter waterman <<a href="mailto:peterwaterman1936@gmail.com" target="_blank">peterwaterman1936@gmail.com</a><div><div class="h5"><br>>>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:peterwaterman1936@gmail.com" target="_blank">peterwaterman1936@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>>>> ><br>>>> >> Strange to have such a question from you, Chris, since my alternative<br>>>> >> to the Left would have pointed in the direction I thought you were<br>>>> >> yourself primarily concerned with: labour, cyberspace, the commons.<br>>>> >> And, for that matter, with the kind of dialogue that followed the<br>>>> >> immediate horror/shock/despair following the Euro Diktat in Greece.<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> But I have no doubt also on this list said 'the left is dead: long<br>>>> >> live global social emancipation'. Or words to this effect.<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> For me the left, or The Left, is a category belonging to the period of<br>>>> >> and following the French political and the English industrial ... err<br>>>> >> ... revolutions.<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> Strange also, to have such a question at this time - that of the<br>>>> >> attempt in Greece to resist a totalitarian capitalist assault with the<br>>>> >> institutions and process of liberal capitalist democracy.<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> Pointing, I think, firmly in this alternative direction would be Paul<br>>>> >> Mason:<br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>><br>>>> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun</a><br>>>> >><br>>>> >> I don't recall whether he says in his article anything positive about<br>>>> >> (ex-) Social Democratic parties, elections, parliamentary democracy,<br>>>> >> the liberal-democratic (less and less) state. Nor in his book, which I<br>>>> >> have not yet read. But his priorities seem to lie elsewhere, with the<br>>>> >> three keywords I started with, and which I will now capitalise for<br>>>> >> your reading pleasure: Labour, Cyberspace, the Commons.<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> But do feel free to set out your own understanding of what is left, or<br>>>> >> 'What's Left?'. Or, for that matter - the Chernyshevsky Question: What<br>>>> >> is to be Done?<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> Best,<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> PeterW<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Christian Fuchs<br></div></div><div><div class="h5">>>> >> <<a href="mailto:christian.fuchs@uti.at" target="_blank">christian.fuchs@uti.at</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:christian.fuchs@uti.at" target="_blank">christian.fuchs@uti.at</a>>> wrote:<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> If in your view, Peter, Corbyn as Labour's leader is no hope for<br>>>> >> the British Left and it is in your view a waste of time to support<br>>>> >> him, can you then please tell us what in your view is the<br>>>> >> practical hope for the British Left?<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> Christian<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> On 7/30/15 10:22, peter waterman wrote:<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> Anna:<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> To say that Corbyn is backed by the unions and the CPGB is no<br>>>> >> necessary<br>>>> >> recommendation.<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> The long, sad story of the Labour Left is either incorporation or<br>>>> >> isolation, or the one followed by the other.<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> And, whilst I would be happy to see Corbyn elected, and eventually<br>>>> >> become CEO of the GB, of NATO, of the EU, of Peace-Keeping<br>>>> >> Troops (here,<br>>>> >> there and everywhere), and to even more eventually become a UN<br>>>> >> Celeb,<br>>>> >> well, even if I was unfortunate enough to be in the UK, I would be<br>>>> >> putting my energy and hopes elsewhere.<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> Best,<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> P<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:42 AM, <<a href="mailto:anna@shsh.co.uk" target="_blank">anna@shsh.co.uk</a><br>>>> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:anna@shsh.co.uk" target="_blank">anna@shsh.co.uk</a>><br></div></div><span class="">>>> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:anna@shsh.co.uk" target="_blank">anna@shsh.co.uk</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:anna@shsh.co.uk" target="_blank">anna@shsh.co.uk</a>>>> wrote:<br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>> >> Sounds like it might be worth joining the Labour Party to<br>>>> >> support<br>>>> >> Corbyn, supported by unions and Communist party!<br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>><br>>>> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/29/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-campaign-momentum?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/29/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-campaign-momentum?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2</a><br>>>> >><br>>>> >> Anna<br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>> >> --<br>>>> >> *Recent publications*<br>>>> >><br></span><span class="">>>> >> 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement:<br>>>> >> Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist.<br>>>> >> <a href="http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism" target="_blank">http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism</a><br></span>>>> >> _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ (Free).2. 2014.<span class=""><br>>>> >> Interface Journal<br>>>> >> Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social Movement<br>>>> >> Internationalisms'.<br>>>> >> (Free).3. 2014. with Laurence Cox, ‘Movement Internationalism/s’,<br>>>> >> Interface: a Journal for and about Social Movements.<br>>>> >> (Editorial), Vol. 6<br></span>>>> >> (2), pp. 1–12.4. 2014. ‘The International Labour Movement in,<span class=""><br>>>> >> Against<br>>>> >> and Beyond, the Globalized and Informatized Cage of Capitalism and<br>>>> >> Bureaucracy. (Interview). Interface: a Journal for and about<br>>>> >> Social<br></span>>>> >> Movements. Vol. 6 (2), pp. 35-58.5. 2014. 'The Networked<span class=""><br>>>> >> Internationalism of Labour's Others', in Jai Sen (ed), Peter<br>>>> >> Waterman<br>>>> >> (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: Struggles for Other<br>>>> >> Worlds (Part<br></span>>>> >> I). (10 Euros).6. 2015. Waterman, Peter. ‘Beyond Labourism,<span class=""><br>>>> >> Development<br>>>> >> and Decent Work’.<br></span>>>> >> <<a href="https://escarpmentpress.org/globallabour/article/download/2338/2433" target="_blank">https://escarpmentpress.org/globallabour/article/download/2338/2433</a>><span class=""><br>>>> >> Global Labour Journal, 2015, 6(2), pp. 246-50.<br>>>> >><br></span><span class="">>>> >> *More publications, click [////]*<br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>> >> _______________________________________________<br>>>> >> NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>>>> >> <a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br></span>>>> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a>><span class=""><br>>>> >> <a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>> >> _______________________________________________<br>>>> >> NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>>>> >> <a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br></span>>>> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a>><br>>>> >> <a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>> >><br>>>> >> --<br>>>> >> *Recent publications*<span class=""><br>>>> >><br>>>> >> 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement:<br>>>> >> Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist.<br>>>> >> <a href="http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism" target="_blank">http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism</a><br></span>>>> >> _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ (Free).2. 2014. Interface<span class=""><br>>>> >> Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social Movement<br>>>> >> Internationalisms'. (Free).3. 2014. with Laurence Cox, ‘Movement<br>>>> >> Internationalism/s’, Interface: a Journal for and about Social<br></span>>>> >> Movements. (Editorial), Vol. 6 (2), pp. 1–12.4. 2014. ‘The<span class=""><br>>>> >> International Labour Movement in, Against and Beyond, the Globalized<br>>>> >> and Informatized Cage of Capitalism and Bureaucracy. (Interview).<br>>>> >> Interface: a Journal for and about Social Movements. Vol. 6 (2), pp.<br></span>>>> >> 35-58.5. 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in<span class=""><br>>>> >> Jai Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements:<br></span>>>> >> Struggles for Other Worlds (Part I). (10 Euros).6. 2015. Waterman,<span class=""><br>>>> >> Peter. ‘Beyond Labourism, Development and Decent Work’.<br></span>>>> >> <<a href="https://escarpmentpress.org/globallabour/article/download/2338/2433" target="_blank">https://escarpmentpress.org/globallabour/article/download/2338/2433</a>><span class=""><br>>>> >> Global Labour Journal, 2015, 6(2), pp. 246-50.<br>>>> >><br></span><span class="">>>> >> *More publications, click [////]*<br>>>> >><br>>>> >> _______________________________________________<br>>>> >> NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>>>> >> <a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br></span>>>> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a>><span class=""><br>>>> >> <a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>>>><br>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>> NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>>>> <a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br>>>> <a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>>> <a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br>>> <a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>><br>_______________________________________________<br>NetworkedLabour mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org" target="_blank">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br><br></span></div></div>
</div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
NetworkedLabour mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org">NetworkedLabour@lists.contrast.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour</a><br>
<br></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: <a href="http://commonstransition.org" target="_blank">http://commonstransition.org</a> </div><div><br></div>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><a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank"></a>Updates: <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>#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/</a> <br></div></div></div></div>
</div>