dear all, I have been quiet and behind schedule, mostly because i was ten days behind the great chinese firewall, unable to access google services and gmail, then on full-on trips to Berlin and Ghent,
but the next few weeks I am settling in, though very busily, in brussels, working 2 months on and off for the labour mutual SMart, so much to read just by following Pat's leads .. On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Stephen Yeo <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Pat for *THE TRADITION *of workers' control by Ostergaard, I > shall have to get this... Am away for two weeks but just read David Bollier > *Thinking > Like a Commoner *for the first time. Wonderful clear account plus so many > useable examples I mention it because he is v good on not reifying ( or > anyway not all the time) THE state... and good, as John will know already , > for work towards a partner state, partner states.And on the John Ruskin > inheritance.. Back in a week's time anyway. The state as a relation of > production ( was that Philip Corrigan?NOT Paul but Philip of *The Great > Arch....)* > > solidarity from, > > Stephen > > On 28/10/2017 13:25, pat commonfutures wrote: > > Hi Michel, Stephen, Roberto, Stacco, John. Colm and Henry > > This thread of ours is such an important debate. All about the scope for > city, commons and public social partnerships. What John R has been > advocating as the partner state and that I am struggling with Mike Lewis > and the Synergia team to improve the course content for the next iteration > of Transition to Co-op Commonwealth. > > A few comments as food for further thought as John and I will be talking > soon to Cilla about what a Co-op College course on Synergia might look like. > > Stephen it is good for you to recall and share the work of Raymond > Williams. Also in respect to Dawkins and the Selfish Gene, Kropotkin's > Mutual Aid provided chapter and chapter of social, historical and > anthropological evidence to critique social darwinism and over a century > ago. > > Geoffrey Ostergaard died in 1990 and was a political scientist at the > University of Birmingham for almost 40 years. He did his Phd under the > guild socialist theorist and activist, GDH Cole. Ostergaard was an expert > on the Gandhian movement in India and the struggle in the 1970s of the > students and co-op activists against the corruption of Indira Gandhi. He > wrote a long book about this. > > His writings on guild socialism were mainly in articles but they were > compiled in 1997 into a short book called The Tradition of Workers Control. > I have been re-reading this during the week and in fact stimulated by this > email thread and by the work of Stephen and his forthcoming new book on the > Three Socialisms - Statist, Collectivist and Associationalist. Stephen's > brilliant manuscript prompted me to re-read the Ostergaard. It really is an > eye-opener and I would encourage you all to get a copy. > > Michel and Stacco you would find it very helpful indeed to the work you > are doing on the Chamber of the Commons. Essentially this is what GDH Cole > was seeking to do in his book Guild Socialism Restated. The challenge is > all about how the partner state can be designed and co-developed as an > Associative Democracy and how the present static unaccountable forms of > democracy can be made practically functional in a distributive > decentralised way. > > In the last chapter of Stephen Yeo's draft book, which is superb, he shows > how the work of Paul Hirst, Robin Murray and others were ploughing this > field. So much in the Ostergaard book goes back to the very full on debates > before World War 1 and into the 1930s about these functional democracy > questions. The theories then ranging about civic sovereignty (SG Hobson) > and co-sovereignty (GDH Cole) are very detailed examinations of how worker, > citizen, consumer, co-op and state associational interests can be enabled > and connected to secure real democracy freedoms via creative institutional > restructuring. > > Ostergaard's book is so relevant to co-op commons and partner state > challenges as it follows this thread of thinking and theorising and > practice from the 1890s to the 1950s when McCarthyism snuffed it all out. I > would encourage everyone to get a copy. It is 150 pages, reads like an > express train and it is available in paperback for about £5 plus postage. > > We need to revisit all this rich thinking as everything was up for grabs > in 1920s before Fordism took over and worker consumer and the potential for > co-op economics was forsaken along with the mission of co-op commonwealth > and guild commonwealth. Actually John and Michel, Guild Commonwealth was a > real powerful way forward and a strong alternative to the statist socialist > paths of Fabian state control, communism and worse of course in Germany. > Michel the theory of Co-Sovereignty is in fact expressed in commons > language and very close to what you are working up in your practical work > in Ghent. > > All the best > > Pat > > > On 16 October 2017 at 10:14 Stephen Yeo <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1) It may be interesting that in the new Introduction to the tenth > anniversary edition of his *The Selfish Gene *that highly influential > figure Richard Dawkins admitted that a better title for his > militantly-competitive, neo-Darwinian book might have been 'the > co-operative gene' , Stephen Jay Gould ( at base a New York Marxisant > radical Democrat) had been arguing for such an approach, against Dawkins , > for years before that.... Darwin has of course been misappropriated > ideologically very often, and I cannot think of a more kindly, co-operative > field-worker and researcher than him.... > > 2) And good one, Henry ! Thank you... This notion of a 'tradition' > deliberately assembled is a v fruitful one I think. Raymond Williams *Culture > and Society 1780-1950 *was such a deeply felt project, in 'literature' > but spiiling over much more widely than that , to piece together a radical > tradition versus Leavis and others and their 'Great Tradition'... and it > has not often been noticed how in the Conclusion to that book ( continued > into *The Long Revolution *of course), he explicitly makes working class > organisation/ association into a cultural form , just as 'cultural' and > just as creative and just as available for practical and moral > evaluation/critique as any work of 'art' . Worth revisiting and trying to > extend into all the solidarity and social creativity work which Synergia > and Solidarity associations of many kinds are pulling together? .... > > anyway, solidarity from, > > Stephen > > On 16/10/2017 02:19, Roberto Verzola wrote: > > By the way, the word cooperation strikes a resonant chord across several > fields. For instance, in evolution, some biologists insist that cooperation > is as widespread a paradigm, if not more dominant, as competition. In market > economics, competition is often contraposed to monopoly. But an orthogonal > view will contrapose cooperation to competition. I haven't seen the word > being coopted in any effective way by corporates, probably because its deep > connotations are to foreign to them. (Although Adam Smith once wrote, in > paraphrase, beware of monopolies when businessmen start to cooperate...). > Finally cooperative has less historical baggage than communes. > > Roberto > > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:18:17 +0100 > Henry Tam <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Pat & colleagues, > > > > Mill, as Pat you reminded us previously, indeed has much to offer beyond > being lumped with the ‘classical economists’. His philosophy enhanced by > cooperative practices ought to be a source of inspiration for contemporary > activists. Incidentally, the need to advance the vision of cooperation as a > guide to reshaping the socio-economic order is well set out in Stephen’s book > on Holyoake, about which I’ve written up this review: > http://henry-tam.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/cooperation-new-order-of-life.html > > > > The democratic cooperative tradition running from Mill, the Owenites, > Hobhouse, Hobson, Tawney, Cole, through to today’s solidarity coop advocates > is one we should build on, because it has so much to offer, and has the > ballast of a real tradition, and not just another concoction with a label the > Right hasn’t yet tried to steal. A cooperative society, with a partner state > guided by public social partnerships. Cooperation, not exploitation. > > > > In solidarity, > > > > Henry > > > > > > From: Pat Conaty <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Reply-To: Pat Conaty <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, 15 October 2017 at 13:09 > To: Henry Tam <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Michel Bauwens > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Colm > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Stephen Yeo > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > Cc: Stacco Troncoso <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, Holemans Dirk <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, Tim Crabtree > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, John Restakis <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, P2P Foundation mailing list > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, > Mike Gismondi <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, David Bollier > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Cilla Ross <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, Margie Mendell <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>, Michael Lewis <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [P2P-F] A globa-local synthesis of a possible city-supported > public-commons partnership for climate- friendly and ecologically balanced > provisioning systems > > > > Hi Henry, Roberto, Michel, Colm and Stephen > > Really good reflections and comments. > > The origin of words is important. I made that point about the Anglo-saxon > word for Wealth being Wellbeing. > > Of course we know that liberty has the two meanings. Positive liberty which > takes us in the direction of economic democracy and negative liberty which is > the laissez-faire free market and limited liberty. JS Mill and others > promoted Associative Democracy, shifting from consumer co-ops to producer > co-ops and avoiding Mill's fear of a Tyranny of the Majority (Trump nativism, > etc) by spreading and developing co-operative education. Mill's question was, > yes we can all agree socialism is a great idea, but how the hell do we build > and make it work. > > RH Tawney a century ago in his fabulous book, the Acquisitive Society, makes > the case for Economic Democracy as the alternative and way out of false > utopias, namely the then emerging Fordist consumerism that he was critiquing > in the early 1920s. > > Tawney showed that democracy and freedoms (rights acquired) need to be seen > as a hierarchy that has been layered up with rights for citizens through > class and social struggle. Hence a thousand years ago commercial freedom can > be traced back to the early charters for trade negotiated with overlords to > set out a fair for people and artisans to meet and the quid pro quo being the > right to such exchange was protected by the overlord in exchange for taxes. A > huge battle to get to this outcome that took place all over Europe. But we > must remember, these early markets in most cases were regulated in moral > economy ways at least. > > Tawney goes on to show the next layers that emerged being freedom of > religious expression through the reformation, freedom for science through > Galileo, etc freedom of the press and communications thereafter and then > civil liberties, the franchise etc But he indicates that Economic Democracy > as a form of daily democracy really is a stage of democracy and liberty > almost nowhere secured. It is the battle hardly yet advanced and really only > since Tawney died 50 years ago via Mondragon and other more recent > innovations like social co-ops are we now clearly about the co-operative > economic science and arts needed to make these work. > > We have to remember also how recent have been the civil liberty battles and > still how this remains the burning issue in the Middle East, China, etc. > > But also what happened with the Guild system it must recalled was that in > some places this was an interesting form of economic democracy, planning > emerging before laissez faire thinking and what today we would call > neoliberalism gained hegemony. Kropotkin shows this in his classic book > Mutual Aid. It was under Elizabeth I, over four centuries ago that artisanal > guilds lost their powers to operate but the Queen did not restrict the > lawyer, accountancy and higher skilled professions from practicing guild > governance of their trades. > > Thus economic democracy has been very partial. This is core as extending > economic democracy really requires co-ops, trade unions, local government and > commoners to join forces. This is what Associative Democracy and Gulld > Socialism are all about. What John calls a new partner state based on public > social partnerships (thanks to Robin Murray for this!) > > That strategy would be what I have in mind about the science and arts of > Co-operative Economics in practice in both seeing and engaging in > Co-operative Commonwealth place shaping for all people and the planet. > > Pat > > On 15 October 2017 at 10:38 Henry Tam <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Roberto’s reflections illustrate the perennial problem of political mind-sets > and word-choices. > > Words can always be claimed, co-opted, converted … Like everything else, it > is sometimes necessary to contest and fight for them. > > Otherwise, the Right will keep taking whatever words they like as ‘right’. > & the Left will keep rummaging for alternatives out of the odd terms that are > left. > > ‘Democracy’, ‘Sustainability’, ‘Commonwealth’, ‘Cooperation’, ‘Community’, > ‘Citizenship’, ‘Values’, ‘Respect’, ‘Progress’, ‘Freedom’, ‘Equality’, > ‘Integrity’, let us not concede such terms to those who do not in fact care > for what they ought to convey. > > In solidarity, > > Henry > > On 15/10/2017, 07:53, "Roberto Verzola" <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for this, Pat. > > Yes, "degrowth" can be a problem rather than a solution, especially to those > who are already on the brink or are already caught in the sinkhole of poverty. > > I didn't mean to promote the term "sustainable development", which as you > said is already corrupted/polluted. I used the terms separately in the sense > that Daly meant them. > > I agree we need to find and settle on some new vocabulary that reflects > precisely the ideas we are promoting. "Commonwealth" may work in some > context. It is a good term, though the term also carries some historical > baggage, which can be negative in some countries. "Cooperative", or even P2P > are good words. "Democracy" is another overused word, and it is too > identified with representative democracy, which as we know has been mostly > hijacked by corporations. I haven't settled on the right term(s) yet, and I > scan all the exchanges here and other lists in the hope of discovering the > right term(s). > > I count myself as a Green, but the word "green" has also been coopted, and I > now find myself having to explain everytime I use the term. > > But that is generally the case. When a term acquires positive connotations, > corporate marketers jump on it and appropriate it for their own use. And they > have a much larger media budget than most of us combined. Perhaps we can > still find a combination of terms whose deep connotations are so > anti-corporate that they dare not appropriate it. "Free software" is probably > one such term (though RMS also found it necessary to clarify what "free" > meant). > > I disagree that "there is no green version that will work at all", although > this may be more because we associate different meanings to that word. I > consider Green my description of closed material cycles fuelled by renewable > energy, where the cycles of biological and non-biological materials are kept > separate (with very well-defined interfaces between them, I would add--a > concept I borrow from software design). I think this is already working in > some situations. It even accomodates some form of growth (putting in more > renewable energy to speed up the material flows). > > Greetings, > > Roberto > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:47:26 +0100 (BST) > pat commonfutures <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Roberto > > These are great points. Yes indeed, Daly talks in Beyond Growth, a very good > book from about 1990 on using Sustainable Development as the term instead of > ideas like Degrowth. We are experiencing degrowth in Europe in austerity > stricken regions and here in the UK, Wales has been in a depression along > with the North of England if you look at the falls in GDP post 2010. However > these regional indicators are not talked about but but the national UK > headline figures that show low-level aggregate growth. In fact degrowth and > recession/depression is the underlying problem. > > Growth and its necessity is driven by returns required to capital to service > debt both for households, nations and businesses. But as Mill indicated but > also Keynes in his essay on the future a hundred years ago, we need to move > to post capitalist society and end usury practices in relation to land, money > and other speculation. This means as the old co-op saying has stressed, > labour needs to hire capital or indeed reformulate money and make it neutral > money or interest free. As Stephen Yeo has said, the early Owenite socialists > but also the Proudhonians in France from the 1820s sought ways and means to > develop co-op land and co-op money without economic rent, interest seekers, > etc. See here the thinking of post Keynesians on cheap money, Daly on money > as a commons (an essay of his), Silvio Gesell on negative interest rates, > etc. This Owenite thinking was also an anti-politics then as working people > had no franchise. The thinking is at the roots of what we have overlooked a! > > s Co-op > > erative Economics. > > The problem with Sustainable Development is that the UN introduced it via the > Brundtland report in 1987 but it has become a polluted and co-opted term by > corporations and by global banks talking about green banking and SRI. Just so > much greenwash. Daly like Schumacher earlier hoped that reforms like the > Meidner Plan in Sweden would show how to fully democratise ownership of > corporations over several decades. The Meidner Plan was a plan to transform > the Swedish Welfare State into a co > > I think therefore that post capitalism, co-operative commonwealth are better > notions and key words with the latter more specific and in the vernacular of > those in the Co-op movement who have pursued past and present Economic > Democracy (mainstream co-op movement does not go there) which means beyond > wage labour and capital as we know them (the essence of debt driven growth > and capitalism - there is no green version that will work at all). > > Pat > > On 09 October 2017 at 01:23 Roberto Verzola <[email protected]> > <[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]> <[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]> > <[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]> > <[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]> > <[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]> > <[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]> > <[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> > <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]> <[email protected]> > > -- > Roberto Verzola <[email protected]> <[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
