<div dir="ltr">thanks Michael for this valuable perspective, which was also tackled in our latest publication on the thermodynamics of peer production,<div><br></div><div>I have launched a challenge to our community of discourse around the p2p-foundation but would welcome any input from the people here, as well, as I think this problem of reconfiguring a political economy that balances four crucial sectors and institutions, is of importance to us all:</div><div><br></div><div>BEGIN TEXT:</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">the following was prompted by Jose Ramos, who was thinking about his new book on commons policy,</span><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">SO, WE NEED TO WORK ON SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN P2P THEORY, and in particular:</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(29,33,41);font-size:14px"><br></p><p style="margin:6px 0px;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(29,33,41);font-size:14px">after hearing a recent monbiot video where he mentioned 4 economic spheres, (market-state-commons-<wbr>households), rather than the 3 we are using at the p2p foundation (market-state-commons) ...</p><p style="margin:6px 0px;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(29,33,41);font-size:14px"><br></p><p style="margin:6px 0px;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(29,33,41);font-size:14px">I have started thinking that in our (at least mine) own work, I have really collapsed household and commons, because I on the one hand, I see the family as a commons and caring as commoning, but on the other hand, I have not seen any solution yet e<span class="gmail-m_-4523993040394559711gmail-text_exposed_show" style="display:inline;font-family:inherit">merge, as how commons-based peer production can actually help the household economy,</span></p><p style="margin:6px 0px;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(29,33,41);font-size:14px"><span class="gmail-m_-4523993040394559711gmail-text_exposed_show" style="display:inline;font-family:inherit"><br></span></p><div class="gmail-m_-4523993040394559711gmail-text_exposed_show" style="display:inline;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(29,33,41);font-size:14px"><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;font-family:inherit">so basically, I am asking for help and ideas on how we could think this through,</p><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;font-family:inherit"><br></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;font-family:inherit"><span style="font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(246,247,249)"> </span><span style="font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(246,247,249)"><span style="font-family:inherit"><span style="font-family:inherit"><span class="gmail-m_-4523993040394559711gmail-UFICommentBody" style="font-family:inherit"><span style="font-family:inherit">here is a potential framework: I would suggest a potential scheme</span><br><br><span style="font-family:inherit">take the 4 economic sectors: commons, state, market and households</span><br><br><span style="font-family:inherit">each of these has internal governance aspects and specific characteristics</span><br><br><span style="font-family:inherit">then, they need to relate to each other, given us commons-market, commons to state, commons-households, etc..</span><br><br><span style="font-family:inherit">then, all of this needs a meta-framework</span></span></span></span></span><br></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;font-family:inherit"><span style="font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(246,247,249)"><span style="font-family:inherit"><span style="font-family:inherit"><span class="gmail-m_-4523993040394559711gmail-UFICommentBody" style="font-family:inherit"><span style="font-family:inherit"><br></span></span></span></span></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 6px;font-family:inherit"><span style="font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(246,247,249)">so far the work at the p2p foundation has been at the intersection of 1) a general framework for commons/state/market, and I believe we have done good work on this 2) work on commons-state (in value in the commons economy and other work) 3) state-commons: our work in ecaudor (focusing on social knowledge commons) and our work in ghent, focusing on institutional design for public-commons cooperation; I think we have done good work and advanced significantly in these 3 directions</span><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><span style="font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(246,247,249)"><span style="font-family:inherit"><span style="font-family:inherit"><span class="gmail-m_-4523993040394559711gmail-UFICommentBody" style="font-family:inherit"><span style="font-family:inherit"><br></span></span></span></span></span></font></span></p></div><div class="gmail-yj6qo gmail-ajU" style="margin:2px 0px 0px"><div id="gmail-:mn" class="gmail-ajR" tabindex="0"><img class="gmail-ajT" src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif" style="opacity: 0.3;"></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Michael Lewis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Lewiscccr@shaw.ca" target="_blank">Lewiscccr@shaw.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div dir="auto" style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>An important and useful thread….</div><div><br></div><div>I pick up on Henry’s comments the language of growth and development and then pose questions related to the suggestion by Pat and Stephen that the defining focus of Synergia being co-operative economics for Synergia </div><div><br></div><div>Immediately below is a comment that suggests Resilience over Growth as a key principle for guiding our setting of priorities. I identify six others in The Next Systems Paper I wrote. Henry, who has read the essay has probed each of my assertions, which I very thankful for. (I am preparing when I have time a full response. Hopefully I will be able to share it soon.) Here I only respond to Henry’s comments on Resilience Over Growth s</div><div><i><u><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></u></i></div><div><i><u><span lang="EN-US">Resilience over Growth </span></u><span lang="EN-US"> Your comment “do we not need
growth, for example, to fund better health provisions, to treat more people, to
provide better care for the elderly and frail, etc.)</span></i></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><i>This is such an important question
Henry. It cannot be addressed without
broadening the contextual analysis, which I think I try to do in the Next
System paper. Though the list is long, for
now I set out only two that drive me to question your premise of your question
regarding growth.</i></span></p><p class="m_-6352029859839452589MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"><i><span lang="EN-US">1.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US">We are consuming equivalent to
almost 1.6 earths natural resources each year.
(<a href="http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/lpr_2016/" target="_blank">http://wwf.panda.org/about_<wbr>our_earth/all_publications/<wbr>lpr_2016/</a>)
In short, our planetary bio-capacity is being ignored, at our collective peril.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p><p class="m_-6352029859839452589MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><i><span lang="EN-US">2.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US">Empirical evidence of climate
breakdown is outstripping IPCC model predictions, the implication being that the
time frame for mitigation and adaptation measures is shortening. Moreover,
research seeking to determine the economic costs of climate breakdown suggest
current and future costs are huge. Bloomberg reported on research suggesting that
climate breakdown impacts are already close to $1 billion per DAY in the U.S.
alone.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p><p class="m_-6352029859839452589MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><i><span lang="EN-US">3.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'"> </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US"><i>Research focused on whether
energy and material resources can be uncoupled from growth, an assumption one
finds in most political and policy positions, is not supported by the evidence in this recently published peer reviewed paper <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5065220/" target="_blank">https://www.ncbi.nlm.<wbr>nih.gov/pmc/articles/<wbr>PMC5065220/</a></i><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_-6352029859839452589MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="m_-6352029859839452589Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Some food for thought re: using the language of growth and development </span></p><p class="m_-6352029859839452589MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="m_-6352029859839452589Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span> First, given the overwhelming weight of mounting evidence, why would we deceive ourselves and others by employing ‘growth' to describe progressive goals of any kind?</span> </p><div> Second, I worry very much that within our cultural mindset development is virtually synonymous with economic growth. Resisting extractive practices</div><div> within capitalism provoke predictably angry responses - why are you against the jobs <b>development </b>brings and the taxes development generates</div><div> to pay for the services and supports we need in society. Embedded in our economic and cultural DNA is that growth is the priority and development is the means to achieve it. </div><div> While I agree with your interpretation of the word development being recast in ‘well-being’ terms I worry that it is so deeply embedded in capitalist culture it has lost its meaning. </div><div><br></div><div>Language matters a lot. How we shape and advance discourse, strategies and projects is framed around by our language. This is perhaps especially so given our goals linked to shifting the paradigm and expanding economic and political solutions that are counter to key features of capitalisms predatory logic..</div><div><br></div><div>I advocate resilience as a much more generative word fit for our times: it is relevant ecologically, socially, economically and culturally. This is why in the book Pat and I wrote we systematically, across every sector and many cases, offered reflections on the extent to which this manifested resilience principles and how they advanced transition. </div><div><br></div><div>One advantage of Resilience is that its principles are derived from how eco-systems function. The Stockholm Resilience Centre has done tremendously important work on socio-ecological systems that are </div><div>local, regional and global in scope. By definition resilience grapples with the threats to health, degradation and tipping points, on the one hand, and multi-scalar restorative strategies for strengthening social, ecological and economic resilience. ‘Growth’ and ‘development’ set within a Resilience framework take on a very different meaning. Growth is by definition limited to planetary boundaries. What priorities we set for ‘growth’ look very different, for example, investmentt focused a rapid expansion/growth of ecological restoration, land fertility, agro-ecological food production,infrastructure to radically reduce water consumption, especially in agriculture, smart grids that enable maximizing resilience and democratic decentralized ownership, radically expanded retrofitting for energy conservation, non-debt based money creation for direct investment in transition priorities, etc. etc </div><div><br></div><div>Synergia, in my view, provides a major opportunity to position cooperative economic democracy as one strategic path for strengthening key aspects of socio-ecological resilience. Resilience thinking and related applications on the ground very much parallel our thinking around decentralized, distributed and democratic ownership, subsidiarity in the realm of governance, elevated emphasis on strengthening local/regional self-reliance etc. </div><div><br></div><div>I think Stephen Yeo, or perhaps it was Pat, reminded us of the entomology of the word wealth is ‘well being’. This is the goal. Given the precarious circumstances people and planet are in I suggest resilience provides a principled, science based framework more relevant to guiding our discussions and action than ‘growth’ and ‘development’ . Cooperative Economic Democracy and Cooperative Economics are strategically important sub-sets, parts of the whole, which when combined with others have the potential to advance the ‘synergy’ required if we are to achieve the radically transformative changes we need. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Michael Lewis </div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><div><span lang="EN-US"> </span><br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This is the basis for my assertion that
resilience over growth is a key principle.
Growth is only tenable intellectually if one disassociates the economy
from the realities of a finite planet having limits. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Oct 10, 2017, at 2:55 AM, Stephen Yeo <<a href="mailto:stephen.yeo@phonecoop.coop" target="_blank">stephen.yeo@phonecoop.coop</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-6352029859839452589Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p> I too think, with Pat, that: <br>
</p><p>' we should position Synergia to become a course in Co-operative
Economics and talk about this rather than new political economy'
Quite apart from the content, Co-operative Economics is , maybe, a
more attractive 'brand ' for current students ... and more
immediately challenging to dominant producers distributors and
exchangers of 'Economics' ? <br>
</p><p>This might come up at the forthcomin g conference in Manchester
on the Co-operative University on Nov 9th ( details from Cilla
Ross)<br>
</p>
solidarity from,<br>
Stephen <br>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589moz-cite-prefix">On 09/10/2017 16:01, pat commonfutures
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Hi Henry, Stephen, Michel, John, Mike, MIke and Tim</p><p>Great comments. Henry if you review JS Mill in his Principles
of Political Economy, when he talks about a radical
interpretation of the steady state (he uses the term stationary
state, but the same thing and meaning), he shows how
quantitative growth could stop and the shift would be on the
focus then on sharing wealth, the development of the good life
for everyone and human and cultural development. </p><p>Also as Stephen will know, Mill's full version of his
Principles which is a huge book, has a vast section on the
co-operative economy and how the then small but growing co-op
movement in Great Britain and Ireland could evolve into the new
economy. </p><p>Mill also talks about how the stationary state could look after
nature and the environment and all written in about 1850. Mill's
book was the most popular textbook on economics in the second
half of the nineteenth century. Herman Daly takes his steady
state economics from Mill. Also he produced an incomplete book
on Socialism before he died.</p><p>Stephen, glad you agree with my observation that true
Co-operative Economics has been repressed and not taught for
since 1989. John I think we should position Synergia to become a
course in Co-operative Economics and talk about this rather than
new political economy (it really did mean capitalism
historically because it is the nation state the determines the
mode of production - today this is the hegemony of the
Washington Consensus).</p><p>All underscores the need for Synergia more than ever in this
age of Trump and Brexit.</p><p>In solidarity</p><p>Pat </p>
<blockquote type="cite">On 08 October 2017 at 14:22 Stephen Yeo
<a class="m_-6352029859839452589moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stephen.yeo@phonecoop.coop" target="_blank"><stephen.yeo@phonecoop.coop></a> wrote:<br>
<br><p>A couple of thoughts: <br>
</p><p>1) re <u>growth</u>. I always liked Raymond Williams's use
of the word 'livelihood'.( Was it in his <em>Towards 2000 </em>which
was building on Rudolf Bahro's <em>The Alternative in Easter
Europe </em>as well as on his own <em>The Long Revolution
?)</em> More, and more sustainable livelihoods. And maybe
John Ruskin's <em>wealth </em>as opposed to <em>illth </em>might
still help, folded into the notion of <em>commonwealth </em>as
it is. And maybe the psychoanalytic ( was it Winnicott?)
usage of <em>enough </em>as in <em>good enough </em>(
parenting etc) might still help: as in developing an idea of
<em>growth enough? / </em>wealth enough... <br>
</p><p>2) And Pat is ( as ever ...)right, re the lack of education
on specifically Co-operative economics. I think this <u>was
</u>taught at the Co-operative College at Stanford Hall, in
the context of 'overseas development' ( and by my brother
Peter Yeo) during the 1960s and 70s? And , half a century and
more before that, we need to look at Plebs League and WEA and
University Extension economics classes. And then, later, at
Michael Barratt Brown and Royden Harrison's work with aduklt
education/ industrial education/ Miners' education classes,
leading into the foundation of 'the Northern Ruskin' i.e. the
Northern College. But but but... , that may have been a bit
more Social Democratic/Left Labour in its orientation than
growing out of the Co-operative Movement. A radically
co-operative economics reaches back, as Pat suggests, to the
Owenite ( dismissed as Utopian) tradition ( though in <em>Socialism
Utopian and Scientific, </em>particularly in an 1892
Introduction to the English edition, Engels was much less
Engels-like about the 'utopians' than is often assumed) .
Last thought :I have long thought that J.A Hobson may need to
come back into the picture, but I am not enough of an
economist to know whether 'pre-Keynesian' 'liberal' etc is
enough to demote him ! He was very much influenced by John
Ruskin on 'work', 'labour '. etc) <br>
</p><p>anyway, <br>
</p><p>solidarity from,</p><p>Stephen <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-moz-cite-prefix">On 08/10/2017 13:37,
Michel Bauwens wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I don't use growth myself,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>degrowth, though an objective necessity, is not the
right political message</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>so we joined the post-growth alliance, but rather focus
on a positive formulation,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>that formulation is that commons-based mutualization
can drastically reduce the human footprint (hence
degrowth) , but at the same time guarantees our capacity
to create more wellbeing services (hence grow happiness)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Francois Grosse has calculated that any growth of our
matter/energy usage highter than 1%,makes the very idea of
a circular economy moot,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>see <a href="http://commonstransition.org/peer-peer-commons-matter-energy-thermodynamic-perspective/" target="_blank">http://commonstransition.<wbr>org/peer-peer-commons-matter-<wbr>energy-thermodynamic-<wbr>perspective/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>christian arnsperger's new book on a perma-circular
economy is also vital in this regard</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Michel</div>
</div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 8, 2017
at 7:31 PM, Henry Tam <<a href="mailto:htam.global@talk21.com" target="_blank">htam.global@talk21.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-m_-5907869113418547414WordSection1"><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Pat, Michel,</p><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">One thing I will
chip in – and it’s something I mentioned to
Michael recently – about is the notion of ‘growth’
itself. ‘Growth’ encapsulated by more polluting
vehicles, more weapons manufactured and deployed,
more accidents and hence insurance claims, more
unhealthy food consumed, etc, etc, is neither good
nor sustainable. And socio-economic structures
designed to promote such ‘growth’ ought to be
criticised, and the end of such ‘growth’ should be
celebrated. But what about growth as
development? For example, more and better care
provisions for the sick and frail elderly, more
leisure engagement in creative activities, better
and more widespread access of treatment and
medication, greater liberation from cold and dark
hours through sustainable use of renewable energy,
more projects to promote and protect biodiversity,
more cultural exchanges and sharing of experiences
across borders, etc.</p><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Having more of
something, & getting it in an efficient
manner, is not inherently undesirable. It depends
on what it is. The presentation of growth and
development as negative features that should be
eliminated gives the wrong impression, and leads
many who are not supporters of
commons/multi-stakeholder coops to shy away
unnecessarily out of concern that this is all
about putting on the brakes to stay put at a
static society.</p><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">I’m more inclined
towards ‘wise development’ than ‘no growth’.</p><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Henry</p><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal"><strong>From: </strong>Pat
Conaty <<a href="mailto:pat.commonfutures@phonecoop.coop" target="_blank">pat.commonfutures@phonecoop.c<wbr>oop</a>><br>
<strong>Reply-To: </strong>Pat Conaty <<a href="mailto:pat.commonfutures@phonecoop.coop" target="_blank">pat.commonfutures@phonecoop.c<wbr>oop</a>><br>
<strong>Date: </strong>Sunday, 8 October 2017
at 13:00<br>
<strong>To: </strong>Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>><br>
<strong>Cc: </strong>Holemans Dirk <a class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Dirk.Holemans@stad.gent" target="_blank"><Dirk.Holemans@stad.gent></a>,
Tim Crabtree <<a href="mailto:tim.crabtree@schumachercollege.org.uk" target="_blank">tim.crabtree@schumachercolleg<wbr>e.org.uk</a>>,
John Restakis <<a href="mailto:restakis1@gmail.com" target="_blank">restakis1@gmail.com</a>>,
Colm <<a href="mailto:colm@solidarityeconomy.coop" target="_blank">colm@solidarityeconomy.coop</a>>,
p2p-foundation <<a href="mailto:p2p-foundation@lists.ourproject.org" target="_blank">p2p-foundation@lists.ourproje<wbr>ct.org</a>>,
David Bollier <<a href="mailto:david@bollier.org" target="_blank">david@bollier.org</a>>,
Stephen Yeo <<a href="mailto:stephen.yeo@phonecoop.coop" target="_blank">stephen.yeo@phonecoop.coop</a>>,
Michael Lewis <<a href="mailto:Lewiscccr@shaw.ca" target="_blank">Lewiscccr@shaw.ca</a>>,
TWC Group <<a href="mailto:htam.global@talk21.com" target="_blank">htam.global@talk21.com</a>>,
<<a href="mailto:mendell@alcor.concordia.ca" target="_blank">mendell@alcor.concordia.ca</a>>,
Stacco Troncoso <<a href="mailto:staccotroncoso@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">staccotroncoso@p2pfoundation.<wbr>net</a>>,
Cilla Ross <<a href="mailto:Cilla@co-op.ac.uk" target="_blank">Cilla@co-op.ac.uk</a>>,
<<a href="mailto:kev.flanagan@gmail.com" target="_blank">kev.flanagan@gmail.com</a>>,
<<a href="mailto:mikeg@athabascau.ca" target="_blank">mikeg@athabascau.ca</a>><br>
<strong>Subject: </strong>Re: A globa-local
synthesis of a possible city-supported
public-commons partnership for climate- friendly
and ecologically balanced provisioning systems</p>
</div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5">
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div><p>Hi Michel</p><p>A key question Michel, here is my attempt to
answer this. Others like Stephen Yeo may wish
to chip in that know the history. </p><p>Daly argues for a shift from growth economics
to steady-state economics. The latter implies
no capitalism. His argument is based on the
forecasts by Adam Smith, JS Mill and Keynes
that in future growth will decline when the
opportunities for it dry up. Marx called this
the accumulation crisis. From 1776 in the
Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith foresaw this
endpoint in about 250 years. Keynes foresaw
this in his Essay on the Future Economics of
Our Grandchildren as happening about 2025.
Mill did not give a date.</p><p>The issue for Daly was what system would
replace an economy without growth as other
economists have foreseen such a state as
leading to the abyss. Mill argued that with
worker ownership of the means of production
via worker co-ops and comprehensive land
reform, this steady state could be a positive
future for qualitative human development.</p><p>Mill argued though that the ownership
question was crucial to set the enabling
circumstances for this. Hence his argument for
land taxation to move property into common
ownership or public ownership. Henry George
takes his single tax idea directly from Mill.
But Mill also argued as another crucial reform
for worker ownership and he made the case that
consumer co-ops were not sufficient. The
reason for this Mill showed is that economic
democracy and in fact full democracy required
participative structures and educational
reform to secure this. Only then could
socialism be practical he felt. This was his
argument against other non-democratic forms of
socialism that he feared would lead to
authoritarian outcomes.</p><p>Polanyi is of this school of democratic
socialism and Daly is a strong supporter of
Polanyi in his books Beyond Growth and For the
Common Good.</p><p>There is a major problem with the history of
socialism. Socialism was the term coined by
the early Co-op movement in England from the
1820s. Robert Owen in particular called it
also social science. He used the terms almost
interchangeably. These socialists were also
for land reform, co-operative land solutions
and interest free money. Mill picked up his
ideas for a democratic socialism from this
original socialist movement. But Marx and
Engels argued for communism and derided the
early socialists as utopian and
non-scientific. Sadly Marx also misunderstood
money and the need for interest-free forms as
the Owenite socialists, the Proudhonian
socialists and other early co-op movements
like these in the US understood.</p><p>Polanyi followed all this and celebrates this
in the Great Transformation and so did the
Guild socialists who felt strongly about
economic democracy (RH Tawney, GDH Cole,
Bertrand Russell) and in the case of Clifford
Douglas (who was very involved with the early
guild socialist movement), monetary reform.
Frederick Soddy picked up ideas from Douglas
and Silvio Gesell in the 1920s and argued for
100% money free of interest and debt. </p><p>Daly's arguments follows closely Polanyi and
Soddy who he quotes and celebrates in Beyond
Growth.</p><p>But because Marx was muddled on the money
question and weak on the need for economic
democracy, Marxists are blind to the needs for
really taking land, people and money out of
the market as Polanyi showed the need for. A
pity this as like Polanyi Marx saw labour,
money and land enclosure so well and how they
had been made into false commodities.</p><p>I can recommend to you and others on this
list an outstanding text book that should be
core reading for Synergia students and the
entire commons movement. It is by Mark Lutz
and called Economics for the Common Good.</p><p>John uses the term political economy and the
need for a new political economy in relation
to the partner state. I understand the reason
why but I do think this is problematic
historically as key words are important to be
clear about. In the late 19th century,
political economy and capitalism were one and
the same thing.</p><p>While the resisters to industrial capitalism
coined the term socialism in the 1820s as the
humane alternative, until the 1870s,
capitalism was not a word really used. The
term for it was political economy and this is
why Marx wrote his Capital as a critique of
political economy. It was with the publication
of Capital that capitalism began to be used
more widely.</p><p>During the 19th century the movement against
capitalism was indeed known as social economy
and included the co-ops and the trade unions.
Sadly the EU definition of social economy by
Jacques Delor from the 1990s leaves out trade
unions and only talks about Co-ops, Mutuals,
Associations and Foundations (CMAF). </p><p>The Lutz book traces a continuous strand of
social economics from the late 18th century to
today (sometimes also called co-operative
economics) that is a radical strand of
socialist thinking that avoids the blindspots
of Marx. </p><p>Also in Daly's book. For the Common Good, he
talks about the work of Schumacher on
innovative thinking viz. an ownership form for
co-ops that could become intergenerational for
securing the common good. Schumacher saw the
solution as to ensure a structure of ownership
in co-ops that required a strong common
ownership foundation. This is very relevant to
your work and to developing Social Solidarity
Economy thinking. The Lutz book is vital
guidance here and for how we best frame
Synergia's pedagogy on these question and what
this idea of Eco-socialism would look like. It
would be a vitally needed synergia of social
economics and ecological economics.
Co-operative economics also ploughs in this
direction if you look at the adherents. </p><p>But there is no teaching of Co-op Economics
within the international Co-op movement,
though I think St. Mary's University in
Halifax has run a course like this prior to an
ICA meeting in Montreal not that long ago. I
just heard this this week.</p><p>Hope this is helpful.</p><p>Pat</p><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5"><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">On 08
October 2017 at 08:37 Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">I did
read several pieces from Daly but it
seems to me he is not challenging
capitalism per se,</p>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">anyone
read him differently ?</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5"><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">On Sat,
Oct 7, 2017 at 10:43 PM, pat
commonfutures <<a href="mailto:pat.commonfutures@phonecoop.coop" target="_blank">pat.commonfutures@phonecoop.c<wbr>oop</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5"><p>Hi Mike and Michel</p><p>Thanks Michel for the Commons
Transition reports. Very good to see
these. Your reply to Mike is also
helpful.</p><p>Thanks also Mike for sharing the
Stan Cox critique about renewable
energy wishful thinking. I found the
comments by David Schwartzman very
persuasive about the Military
Industrial Complex power elite and
their focused role viz. fossil fuel
geopolitics and nuclear energy. This
is a very little discussed
structural impediment. </p><p>Also this confirms the need for
Greens to focus on eco-soclalist
ways forward. As Streeck argues,
Growth is bound in its hands and
feet with the Accumulation demands
of capitalism and the money machine.
Steady-state economics based on
thermodynamics as Herman Daly so
well articulates this necessitates a
post capitalism system. Schwartzman
underscores this.</p><p>Pat</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5"><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">On
05 October 2017 at 06:09
Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5"><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">dear
Michael,</p>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">I
will add some responses
in-line</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5"><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">On
Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at
11:51 PM, Michael Lewis
<<a href="mailto:Lewiscccr@shaw.ca" target="_blank">Lewiscccr@shaw.ca</a>>
wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Pat
I really like the
memo you sent. But I
have several
questions. (Michel
- I wrote this and
then see you have
replied to Pat) I
will think about and
perhaps comment
later. I the
meantime here is my
response to Pat)</p>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">I
am a poor student
of history, but as
I have come to
understand Cole
his guild strategy
was rooted in the
work place,
although relevant
to other kinds of
association. The
role of the state
was radially
reduced. What
emerged was a
decentralized,
democratic
approach to
provisioning,
where workers were
the central (but
not only) actors.
Advise me here
what I am
missing. </p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">If
this is the case
there a large
difference in what
Michel is
proposing? The
foundation of his
proposition is
public-commons
partnerships. Is
this not very
different? Given
the radical
difference in
reference points -
Cole with workers
a the base and
this 21st idea
where globally
mediated knowledge
that enables
localize
production on an
open-mutualized-cooperative
basis; I wonder
where the context
renders some of
Cole’s
propositions less
relevant. </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">in
my interpretation, the
commons are themselves
multi-stakeholders, so
this include the
workers and the user
communities ; you may
be familiar with the
idea of some that
today the workplace
has exploded and is no
longer confined to the
factory; but there is
an obvious linkage
between the commons
seen as the locus of
co-production, and
thus a sphere of
production including
workers, and
industrial and craft
workers as they used
to exist</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Second,
as I understand it
Michel, your
proposition is
critically
dependent of an
member cities to
be active at the
city and global
level, the latter
through
associations. In
short, cities are
organized into a
body the
coordinates and
governs the terms
under which
sourcing technical
solutions is build
and maintained on
an open source
base. Question
here Michel is
whether access to
the knowledge
repository
requires cities to
be active members
of the global
mutual…??</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">the
code is open source,
and would be
accessible to
everybody, but the
right to
commercialization of
that code may be
subjected to some
reciprocity
limitatations, in my
opinion
(reciprocity-based
licensing) </p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Third,
the territorial
platform
co-operatives
become critical
infrastructure for
production,
distribution and
governing.
Michel…a question
about the platform
co-ops; are they
conceived of as
being
multi-stakeholder
and, if so, what
is the role of
local state
actors, if any?</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">yes,
they are conceived as
multi-stakeholder and
I'm open to
co-governance by local
public actors</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Lastly,
I am wondering
about the thinking
to date on whether
there will be
limits to what is
gathered into the
global digital
open source
repository? Is
the focus on all
the critical
elements to aid
and accelerate
transition? Given
the absolute
urgencies emerging
from climate
breakdown, this
might make senses.
Or is it broader?
I think these are
important
questions as they
will shape the
counters of the
politics that such
a proposition
would provoke.
Even if it is
restricted to
urgent transition
related
production, I can
imagine that a
global
manufacturers of
say, public
transit vehicles,
and their
employees, would
be none to pleased
with a strategy
that could has the
potential for
sidelining their
businesses and
jobs.. But, then
again, I may not
be capturing the
fullness of the
vision. </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">for
me, this would work
for all provisioning
systems, and is
connected to the
climate/ecological/resource
emergency of our time,
i.e. this proposal is
one of the crucial
ways to radicallly
reduce our material
footprint </p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">One
interesting and
attractive feature
of what Michel is
proposing is the
bypassing of
national
governments. Given
the growing
network of cities
collaborating on
climate breakdown
and transition
strategies, and
for those
involved, their
leadership in
advancing more
progressive
transition
politics, the
proposal being put
forward has a
strategic context
where it can be
tested. </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">national
partner-state
governments could
decide at a later
stage to join and
support these global
depositories</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">by
the way, this was
written in the context
of urban transitions,
but I realize it could
be stronger in
stressing the role of
the cooperative sector
in supporting the
deployment of such
infrastructure</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Michel</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5">
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Anyways,
a bit more grist
for the proverbial
mill. </p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Michael
L</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5">
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">On
Oct 4, 2017,
at 9:04 AM,
Michel Bauwens
<<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5">
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Dear
Pat,</p>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">as
I was schooled
in marxism in
my youth, and
subsequently
abandoned it,
this means
that much of
the tradition
you speak of
is completely
unknown to me,
I had simply
no idea that
georgism and
guild
socialism even
existed and
where so big
back then ...
for me there
were
revolutionaries,
reformists and
anarchists
(and
stalinists
<g>) ...</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">when
I decided to
embark on p2p
work, I
decided to
make a clear
break with my
dogmatic past,
and start
constructing a
'low theory'
that would be
a more direct
expression of
what is
happening and
possible
today. Hence
in my wiki, I
only include
things that
exist (no
projects or
plans) and use
concepts that
are born from
the very
movement I am
observing.</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">as
much as I
think it is
necessary, I
don't see it
as a very
realistic
possibility
for me to dig
into that
history, so I
am very much
counting on
you for this
historical
context and
genealogy!!</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">one
note, you will
have seen in
my approach a
combination of
the local and
the global,
bypassing the
nation-state
level.</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">There
is both a
opportunistic
and strategic
reason for
this</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Opportunistic
as it appears
in a report on
urban
transitions, </p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">but
strategic as I
see coalesced
cities (and
bioregions/territorities)
as a crucial
new part of
transnational
governance,
which can't be
a
inter-statist
world
government,
but must be
based on
global
public-commons
alliances</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">quid
with the
nation-state,</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">I
am not dissing
it, but I
think
nation-states
should now
support
transnational
commons
infrastructures</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">the
double
movement has
become
inoperative
because of the
trans-nationalization of capital; national revolutions carry great risks
and dangers
(syriza,
venezuela),
and
keynesianism
can only be a
small part of
the solution
in the context
of overshoot</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">so
what is a
progressive
majority in a
nation-state
to do, for
sure, let it
do green new
deals at the
national
level, but
crucially, it
must also
understand
that change
today is not
going to come
from a frontal
assault
against a
stronger
enemy, but
from a global
coalition of
change efforts
everywhere,
which are the
only ones that
can overwhelm
the repressive
capacity of
the
transnational
empire</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">in
other words,
progressive
national
governments
must absolute
support the
kind of global
commoning
policies we
are proposing
and cannot
limit their
vision on
their own
citizens</p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Michel</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5"><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">On
Wed, Oct 4,
2017 at 10:21
PM, pat
commonfutures
<<a href="mailto:pat.commonfutures@phonecoop.coop" target="_blank">pat.commonfutures@phonecoop.c<wbr>oop</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5"><p>Hi Michel</p><p>Some
feedback for
consideration.....</p><p>This is a
really good
summary and
illustration.
So much makes
complete sense
to me. Thanks
so much for
this
articulation.
I think it is
rich and very
helpful
indeed. When
will the
report be
coming out and
who are the
authors?</p><p>I have a
sense of deja
vu however? So
my comments
are about the
practical
articulation
and the
dynamics as
other forces
are in play.
For the past
two hundred
plus years,
the tension
and indeed
struggle
between
authority at
the political
level and the
striving for
democratic
authority from
the grassroots
has been
continuous and
constant.
Polanyi's
Double
movement
therefore has
many dynamic
aspects to
consider. How
is it best to
do this to be
clear about
the
dialectical
complexity?</p><p>Stephen
Yeo, a very
close
colleague of
Robin Murray's
over decades,
is writing a
book on the
Three
Socialisms.
These are
Statism (from
social
democracy to
communism),
Collectivism
and
Associationism.
The last form
is the most
forms that are
participatively democratic and includes working class self-help
associations
for mutual aid
and including
of course
trade unions
that we should
try to include
in your
illustration
of the layers.</p><p>The ideas
you are
advancing are
a rekindling
of the debates
and thinking
from say 1900
right up to
1947 when the
Cold War
kicked off and
when Statism
thereafter
effectively
crushed and
suppressed
associative
democracy
thinking and
ideas.
Statists East
and West told
co-ops and
unions thank,
but no thanks.
We are taking
over to make
your bits and
pieces
integrated and
comprehensive. </p><p>But to
guide this
earlier
struggle by
commoners, In
1919 GDH Cole
produced his
book Guild
Socialism
Restated when
he set out a
very clear
blueprint with
a remarkable
coincidence
with what you,
David B,
Janelle Orsi
and others are
working up
here. </p><p>What is
very creative
about the Cole
proposals that
Bertrand
Russell fully
supported in
his book Roads
to Freedom a
century ago
was to
recognise
clearly that
political
socialism
(social
democracy
shall we say)
and
associative
socialism need
to be
established at
the
territorial
level and at
the national
level in a
system of
checks and
balances with
a clear and
agreed
division of
labour between
the politicos
and the
economic
democrats.</p><p>Essentially
the proposal
of Cole set
out a blue
print for how
economic
democracy
though a Guild
Congress at
local,
regional and
national
levels would
relate and
complement
Parliamentary
democracy. But
what was
wonderful
about the Cole
proposals is
that it
considered
co-operative
commonwealth
building in
all
industries,
services, arts
and sciences
and worked out
sector
solutions for
them. Plus
Cole also
proposed that
cities should
be based on
land held in
commons to
capture
economic rent
and to stop
speculation.
Thus he argued
for
co-operative
garden cities.</p><p>20 years
earlier in
Fields
Factories and
Workshops had
attempted a
very creative
blueprint as
well for
economic
democracy and
what in
practice this
would look
like.</p><p>Okay
Polanyi did
not arrive in
the UK until
about 1933 and
his way to
escape fascism
was paid for
by crowd
funding by
Guild
Socialist, but
given that in
Vienna in the
1920s Polanyi
was at the
forefront of
associative
democracy
solutions and
thinking, you
can see the
resonance.</p><p>Given that
democratic
socialism is
being
rekindled in
parts of
Europe (Spain,
Portugal, the
UK and
elsewhere), I
think it would
helpful to
connect the
sound thinking
from the 1920s
before the
lights began
being turned
out with what
you are
proposing.</p><p>I would
suggest we are
rediscovering
co-operative
commonwealth
thinking and
practice which
you are doing
such a
brilliant job
of updating to
the digital
age.</p><p>I hope this
helps.
Drawing on the
best practices
from the past
will enable us
to
contextualise
the arguments
and link these
to this
vernacular
part of the
Double
Movement we
should not
overlook.</p><p>All the
best</p><p>Pat</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5"><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">On
04 October
2017 at 06:35
Michel Bauwens
<<a href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5"><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">this
is the very
last section
of our report
which will
come out soon
with the Boll
foundation:</p>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-h5">
<h2>3.6.
Towards a
global
infrastructure
for
commons-based
provisioning</h2><p>We have
argued in this
overview that
we are in a
conjuncture in
which
commons-based
mutualizing is
one of the
keys for
sustainability,
fairness and
global-local
well-being. In
this
conclusion, we
suggest a
global
infrastructure,
in which
cities can
play a crucial
role.</p><p>See the
graphic below
for the
stacked layer
that we
propose, which
is described
as follows:</p>
<ul type="disc">
<li>The first
layer is the
cosmo-local
institutional
layer. Imagine
global
for-benefit
associations
which support
the
provisioning
of
infrastructures
for urban and
territorial
commoning.
These are
structured as
global
public-commons
partnerships,
sustained by
leagues of
cities which
are
co-dependent
and
co-motivated
to support
these new
infrastructures
and overcome
the
fragmentation
of effort that
benefits the
most
extractive and
centralized
‘netarchical’
firms.
Instead, these
infrastructural commons organizations co-support MuniRide, MuniBnB, and
other
applications
necessary to
commonify
urban
provisioning
systems. These
are the global
“protocol
cooperative”
governance
organizations.</li>
<li>The second
layer consists
of the actual
global
depositories
of the commons
applications
themselves, a
global
technical
infrastructure
for open
sourcing
provisioning
systems. They
consists of
what is
globally
common, but
allow
contextualized
local
adaptations,
which in turn
can serve as
innovations
and examples
for other
locales. These
are the actual
‘protocol
cooperatives’,
in their
concrete
manifestation
as usable
infrastructure.</li>
<li>The third
layer are the
actual local
(urban,
territorial,
bioregional)
platform
cooperatives,
i.e. the local
commons-based
mechanisms
that deliver
access to
services and
exchange
platforms, for
the mutualized
used of these
provisioning
systems. This
is the layer
where the
Amsterdam
FairBnb and
the MuniRide
application of
the city of
Ghent,
organize the
services for
the local
population and
their
visitors. It
is where
houses and
cars are
effectively
shared.</li>
<li>The
potential
fourth layer
is the actual
production-based open cooperatives, where distributed manufacturing of
goods and
services
produces the
actual
material
services that
can be shared
and mutualized
on the
platform
cooperatives.</li>
</ul><p>...</p>
</div>
</div><p><img id="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-m_-5907869113418547414_x0000_i1025" alt="igure
8.png" width="666" height="469"></p><p><em>Figure
8:
City-supported
cosmo-local
production
infrastructure</em></p>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">--</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Check
out the
Commons
Transition
Plan here at:
<a href="http://commonstransition.org/" target="_blank">http://commonstransition.org</a> </p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">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>
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/mbauwe<wbr>ns</a><br>
<br>
#82 on the
(En)Rich list:
<a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-comp<wbr>lete-list/</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">--</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Check
out the
Commons
Transition
Plan here at:
<a href="http://commonstransition.org/" target="_blank">http://commonstransition.org</a> </p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">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>
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/mbauwe<wbr>ns</a><br>
<br>
#82 on the
(En)Rich list:
<a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-comp<wbr>lete-list/</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">--</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Check
out the Commons
Transition Plan here
at: <a href="http://commonstransition.org/" target="_blank">http://commonstransition.org</a> </p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">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>
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/mbauwe<wbr>ns</a><br>
<br>
#82 on the (En)Rich
list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-comp<wbr>lete-list/</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">--</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">Check
out the Commons Transition Plan here
at: <a href="http://commonstransition.org/" target="_blank">http://commonstransition.org</a> </p>
</div>
<div><div> <br class="m_-6352029859839452589webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
</div><p class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-MsoNormal">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>
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/mbauwe<wbr>ns</a><br>
<br>
#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-comp<wbr>lete-list/</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="m_-6352029859839452589ox-cbdce5f30f-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>
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/<wbr>mbauwens</a><br>
<br>
#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-<wbr>complete-list/</a>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
</font></span></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="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>