Guessing I.M. is someone in the Greek delegation from Syriza government?  What 
would really be interesting is to hear whether they had any vision or plan for 
this moment expected to come, since this was obvious possibility. Since the 
email sounds like requesting for public support campaign to grow underground. 
This is partly similar to that we have been trying to think of, on these 
exchanges, like an emergency deployment force, commons action plan, so on.. the 
situation now shows that is rather an expressed need by the greek gov? It would 
be great to know if there is any preparation from syriza's side, for instance 
if they would support, or encourage, such a commons conference for instance for 
radical alternatives? Would it be an interest of them? Could anyone who 
received the above email in the first place, or close to Syriza inform us on 
that? 
 

Ps: Cant access the original book, but from Kevin's below review of Pat and 
Mike's book, I got the idea that there is another transition perspective in the 
book: 

"Michael Lewis and Pat Conaty. The Resilience Imperative: Cooperative 
Transitions to a Steady-State Economy (New Society Publishers, 2012) 400pp.

This book starts with a macroscopic analysis of where the existing corporate 
capitalist economy goes wrong — the pathological effects of debt-based 
currency, a GDP that counts waste as “growth,” etc. — and proceeds to outline a 
detailed blueprint for a resilient alternative. This latter blueprint, in a 
series of detailed chapters, examines the authors’ proposals for a sustainable 
successor society.

Most of the proposals are things readers in the green, decentralist and 
alternative economics communities are probably familiar with: basic guaranteed 
incomes, barter currencies, taxation of land value and extraction, community 
land trusts, employee ownership and self-management as the standard business 
model, etc. Each of them, by itself, involves the kind of fundamental 
structural change you could spend days imagining the effects of. Taken 
together, their cumulative effect is the a model of society that makes a “petty 
bourgeois socialist” like me salivate, and would make P.J. Proudhon and Henry 
George jump up out of their graves and shout “Hallelujah.”


In the course of each chapter, the authors examine the pathological effects of 
a particular structural privilege or monopoly — and in particular, it’s 
contribution to the cost of living. At the end of the chapter, they present the 
savings from the average family’s expenditures that would result from their 
proposed reform, along with a running total of the cumulative savings from 
previous proposals in the book. By the end of the book, that amounts to a huge 
portion of average household expenditures.

I have a few quibbles; I’m an anarchist, after all. Although the guaranteed 
basic income coupled with Pigouvian taxation would be a vast improvement on the 
present system, my preference is for

1) letting the full deflationary effect of technological progress and the 
abolition of monopoly run their course (with a much bigger likely reduction in 
GDP and prices than even Lewis and Conaty envision);

2) distribute the hours of necessary labor as widely as possible through a 
drastically reduced work week; and

3) support the elderly and incapacitated, and those whose productive activity 
is difficult to monetize, through cost- and risk-pooling mechanisms like 
communal primary social units (cohousing projects, extended family compounds, 
urban communes, intentional communities, squatter communities, and the like).

Second — a quite minor quibble — I’m skeptical about the authors’ claim that an 
end to the subsidized corporate food system would significantly raise household 
food costs. For one thing, I think a lot of food production would be shifted 
out of the cash nexus altogether, and into the informal and household economy. 
And even if it takes more labor to grow a tomato in a raised bed than on a 
mechanized plantation, I still think the total labor involved in growing it via 
soil-intensive cultivation at the actual site of consumption is probably less 
than that required to earn the money to pay the price of agribusiness produce 
(including all the embedded costs of long-distance distribution, high-pressure 
marketing, batch and queue processing, etc.). Ralph Borsodi’s analysis of the 
economics of home production is still valid, eighty years later.

Third — much more important in my opinion — is their treatment of the idea of 
“free markets.” For example, here’s their take on the neoliberal policies of 
recent decades: “When government got out of the way and the free market was 
unleashed, once again the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.”

No. Neoliberalism involved simply weakening some secondary restrictions on the 
state’s primary grants of privilege to big business and the plutocracy.  These 
primary grants of privilege — the most fundamental structural feature of our 
economy — were left in place and strengthened. Without all the 
government-enforced or -provided subsidies, regulatory cartels, artificial 
property rights and artificial scarcities that now exist — subsidies to 
extractive industries, the state-enforced banking monopoly, absentee titles to 
vacant and unimproved land, and “intellectual property” [sic] among them — 
Fortune 500 corporations and the entire billionaire class would melt like 
garden slugs with salt on their backs.

One thing I especially appreciate is they grok the concept of resilience in its 
essence, not just some accidental features of it. Their seven principles of 
resilience on pp. 19-20 include things like redundancy, modularity, and tight 
feedback loops that should be familiar to readers of John Robb or John Boyd.

If you’re the kind of person who’s review in the first place, it’s a safe bet 
this is the kind of book you’d enjoy. I know I did."

best, Orsan




 

> On 17 February 2015 at 09:55, mp <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/02/15 01:24, Michel Bauwens wrote:
> > Ioannis requests to forward this message:
> 
> !!And requests that you delete email
> addresses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> > In case you forward this, please erase previous e-mail addresses for
> > privacy reasons.
> _______________________________________________
> Commoning mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning

_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing list
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Reply via email to