Thank you Roberto, this is very useful, Michel
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Roberto Verzola <[email protected]> wrote: > May I add my few cents' worth to this discussion on growth, degrowth, > steady state, etc. > > To introduce myself briefly: I am currently involved in social experiments > in renewable energy, and we have since expanded this to sustainable > technologies in general. We define a sustainable technology as one that > involves a closed loop of material cycles run by renewable energy, where > cycles of biodegradable materials and cycles of non-biodegradable materials > (which McDonough and Braungart call "technical materials") are kept > separate. Other technologies we actually work with include the system of > rice intensification (SRI), which currently holds the world record in rice > yield and can be implemented organically, low-power FM (in which the > technology determines form and content to a significant extent), biogas > digesters, a social (rather than technical) solution to power outages > through the use of traditional and social media, and a few others. > > I think it was Daly too who distinguished between growth and development. > Growth involves increases in quantity, while development may involve > improvements in quality. > > As someone said earlier, "degrowth" is a politically untenable message > especially in a country like the Philippines where almost a third of the > population live below the poverty line. But calling for a shift in emphasis > to development rather than growth is more easily defensible (plus of course > a certain level of distribution). > > The point I wanted to contribute is that within our definition of > sustainable technology, we can still imagine growth occurring when the > material flows in the cycles I referred to above are increased as long as > additional energy from renewable sources is available to feed into these > cycles. So I can still see growth as a component in an overall strategy of > development. > > By the way, her work is a bit dated now, but I still find Jane Jacobs' > Cities and the Wealth of Nations and her paradigm of city-centered regional > (i.e., sub-national) development very useful, especially if it is updated > to take ecological matters as well as the information sector more into > account. > > Greetings to all, > > Roberto Verzola > Philippines > > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:26:26 +0700 > Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote: > > > very helpful Pat, > > > > in the articles, not books, that I've read by Daly, i saw no reference to > > this, > > > > Michel > > > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 6:59 PM, pat commonfutures < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Michel > > > > > > A key question Michel, here is my attempt to answer this. Others like > > > Stephen Yeo may wish to chip in that know the history. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Daly's arguments follows closely Polanyi and Soddy who he quotes and > > > celebrates in Beyond Growth. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Hope this is helpful. > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > > > > On 08 October 2017 at 08:37 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > I did read several pieces from Daly but it seems to me he is not > > > challenging capitalism per se, > > > > > > anyone read him differently ? > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:43 PM, pat commonfutures < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mike and Michel > > > > > > Thanks Michel for the Commons Transition reports. Very good to see > these. > > > Your reply to Mike is also helpful. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > On 05 October 2017 at 06:09 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > dear Michael, > > > > > > I will add some responses in-line > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Michael Lewis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > 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…?? > > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > yes, they are conceived as multi-stakeholder and I'm open to > co-governance > > > by local public actors > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > national partner-state governments could decide at a later stage to > join > > > and support these global depositories > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Michel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyways, a bit more grist for the proverbial mill. > > > > > > Michael L > > > > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Pat, > > > > > > 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>) ... > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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!! > > > > > > one note, you will have seen in my approach a combination of the local > and > > > the global, bypassing the nation-state level. > > > > > > There is both a opportunistic and strategic reason for this > > > > > > Opportunistic as it appears in a report on urban transitions, > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > quid with the nation-state, > > > > > > I am not dissing it, but I think nation-states should now support > > > transnational commons infrastructures > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Michel > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:21 PM, pat commonfutures < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Michel > > > > > > Some feedback for consideration..... > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > All the best > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > On 04 October 2017 at 06:35 Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > this is the very last section of our report which will come out soon > with > > > the Boll foundation: > > > > > > 3.6. Towards a global infrastructure for commons-based provisioning > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > See the graphic below for the stacked layer that we propose, which is > > > described as follows: > > > > > > - > > > > > > 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. > > > - > > > > > > 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. > > > - > > > > > > 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. > > > - > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > [image: Figure 8.png] > > > > > > Figure 8: City-supported cosmo-local production infrastructure > > > > > > -- > > > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > > > http://commonstransition.org > > > > > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > > > > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > > > > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > > > http://commonstransition.org > > > > > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > > > > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > > > > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > > > http://commonstransition.org > > > > > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > > > > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > > > > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: > > > http://commonstransition.org > > > > > > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > > > > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > > > > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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/ > > > -- > Roberto Verzola <[email protected]> > -- 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
