On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Michel, > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Michel Bauwens > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Bob Haugen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'm thinking about Ackerman's ideas about "a form of socialized finance > >> which would respect the autonomy of the firm." I think it might help, > but I > >> don't know how we would get it to happen. Which is the problem with a > lot of > >> "good ideas", including those of the P2PF. They would require a > non-existent > >> organization to take over from our present rulers. (P2PF is a bit more > >> realistic than Ackerman, but still...) > > > > I am puzzled by your point here. I think the logic is very different. The > > proposal of Ackerman are a proposal for a political program that needs to > > win power first, but the great majority of the proposals of the p2p > > foundation are already working (it's the rule for the wiki, it has to > > exist), though they may need politics to be scaled and generalize. > > > > Of course, i have a few proposals which call for new institutions, but > they > > are happening as well (phyles, assemblies and chambers of the commons); > > stigmergy and transparency between entrepreneurial coalitions is > happening > > as well > > > > so which proposals do you mean exactly, dear Bob ? > > Partner state, in particular. > but this is probably the most realistic of all, since prefigurative experiences, like the very mature project in Brest, is already going on for ten years or more; and the new slate of co-cities in Italy are getting significant traction, especially Bologna let's not forget we are not utopians, but seek significant and realistic shifts and especially, prefigurative experimentations > > I agree that many of the new institutions are starting to happen, but > they are weak and often disconnected from one another. But the fact > that they are happening at all makes them more realistic than > Ackerman's proposal or any one-swell-foop transformation. Although > once the separate threads cohere, the transformation could happen > fast. > > > see above, if you give an expanded definition of stigmergy, which I > think is > > appropriate, then yes. COULD YOU PLEASE write a full article on this !! > We > > really need to make that argument formally as part of our mutual > > coordination proposals. Can you educate us about this path forward. > > I'll do it in conjunction with more study in relation to that other > article you are working on. I need to catch up a bit on the more > recent developments. > ok super > > > ok, to help you write that article, see: > > > http://p2pfoundation.net/How_Current_Supply_Chains_Can_Serve_Broader_Mutual_Coordination > > I assume I can change the title, too? > I changed it following your instructions on the talk page -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
