about the site (linked above) via David Bollier:
“In announcing the new website, Michel Bauwens said, “We share [these proposals] in order to provide an overview of the many precedents and possibilities pointing toward a fairer societal order, and to inspire civil society collectives at the local, regional, national and global levels to adapt them to their particular contexts.”
The original FLOK Society proposals are already being adapted by the Catalan Integral Cooperative (CIC) in Catalunya. The FLOK project differed in that it was a state-sponsored study while CIC pursuing its proposals as a completely pre-figurative, stateless initiative. The Commons Transition Plan website plans to track the ongoing developments of both projects.”
commons transition book:
links to pdf or ebook
– – –
p 10 – for most of the history of industrial and post-industrial capitalism, the primary political conflict has been one between state and market – whether to use the state power for redistribution of wealth and regulation of the excesses of the market, or to allow market players to privatize the value of public and social goods and services for the benefit of capital….. in our current political economy, except for a few researchers who operated outside the mainstream, such as Elinor Ostrom an her research on the commons, the focus on social value and the common good has been discarded as a historical legacy without future.
but the emergence of digital knowledge, software and design, as new forms of commons not only recreate commons-oriented modes of production and market activities, they also show that value is now increasingly created through contributions, not traditional labor, to create commons, not commodities. .. it can be said that civil society has now become productive in its own right, and we can make a leap from contributor communities of software developers to a vision of civil society that consists of civil commons contributed to by citizens.
p 11 – the ebook you read here is part of an ongoing effort to create an open public forum for further commons-driven and commons-oriented policy-making, that is distinct from its first iteration in ecuador (floksociety.org), and is open to all contributions from commoners globally.
p 12 – while there are already substantial, if not thriving, social movements in favor of the commons, the sharing society and peer-to-peer dynamics, this is the first coherent effort to craft a transition program in which this transformation is described in political and policy terms – Michel
p 15 – a full commons transition would consider the four commons, ie: the polanyian triarchy (land, labor, money), plus the knowledge commons.
all people of the world are subjected to the pseudo-abundance of a growth-based system that ignores natural limits, and to the artificial scarcities imposed by ‘intellectual property’ legislation, which inhibits and criminalizes the free cooperation of humanity.
p 18 – three models of cognitive capitalism:
1\ classic cognitive capitalism based on ip extraction – extracts rent from intellectual property – so dependent on ip regulations.. that keep forms of knowledge artificially scarce – ie: monopolies et al
2\ netarchical capitalism based on control of networked platforms – controls proprietary social media platforms, but nevertheless enables direct peer to peer communication between individuals. no longer controls direct production.. but extracts value through its new role as platform intermediary. ie: google, facebook
3\ a mature ‘civic’ peer-to-peer economy – a hypothetical form we believe we may successfully transition to .. where the value is redistributed to the value creators. ie: free use of commons requires contribution (reciprocity) – at least from for-profit companies…
p 26 – the stigmergic coordination, which is already operating in the sphere of ‘immaterial’ production such as free software and open design, would gradually be transferred to the sphere of ‘material’ production.
to the degree that such stigmergic systems create the possibility of resource-based economic models, such spheres of the economy would be gradually demonetized and replaced by measurement systems..
p 33 – ultimately, the driving force of capitalism in our age is the eradication of all commons and the commodification of all things. the colonization and appropriation of the public domain by capital is a the heart of the new enclosures. this process is sustained and extended through the complex and every-evolving web of patents, copyright laws, trade agreements, think tanks, and government and academic institutions that provide the legal, policy, and ideological frameworks that justify all this.
p 34 – by contract, a social knowledge economy is based on the principle that knowledge is a commons that should be free an openly accessible for the pursuit of what Rene Ramirez, minister of the senescyt innovation agency in ecuador, describes as “good living”, not as an instrument of commercial profit. knowledge is perceived as a social good.
p. 35 – without strong civic institutions committed to the idea of the commons and the public good, open knowledge systems are vulnerable to appropriation and ultimate commodification by capitalist firms as is currently the case with the internet itself.
… the identification of these institutions and of the public policies needed for their development and growth is the overarching aim of this research.
p. 37 – ..’there is not empirical evidence that they [patents] serve to increase innovation and productivity, unless productivity [or innovation] is identified with the number of patents awarded’
p. 40 – infinite material growth is really the core mantra of capitalism, and it is made necessary and facilitated by the very design of the contemporary monetary system, where money is mostly created to interest-driven bank debt.
p. 46 – .. when someone extends a loan with interest, that interest does not exist, and the borrower has to find the money somewhere else. in other words, to pay back the interest, he has to impoverish somebody else.
or why most people are in debt..
p. 47 – now that we have reached the limits of he biosphere, now that we need again a steady-state economy, we need interest-free monetary systems..
or money\less systems..
p. 48 – reciprocity-based open licenses.
p. 49 – hence, we have the paradox that licenses which allow for full sharing, in practice promote the accumulation of capital.
in the cultural sphere, one of the answers for this has been the invention and use of the creative commons non-commercial license. these type of licenses allow anyone to use and reproduce the cultural product, on the condition that no commercial profit is intented and realized. this solution raises two issues. one is that such a license does not create a real commons, but only a scale of sharing that is determined by the producer of the cultural product; in other words, there is no common creation of a common pool. the second is that it prohibits further economic development based on that protected work…
alternative – peer production license – allows worker-owned and commons -contributing entities to freely use the common pool of knowledge, code, and design, but demands a license fee from for-profit companies that want to use the same common pool for the realization of private profit.
p. 54 – capitalist-driven societies produce for exchange vale, which may be useful, or not; and continuously strives to create new social desires and demands. by way of contrast, the open commons based knowledge economy consists a productive civil society of contributors, citizen contributors who continuously contribute to the commons of their choice based on use value motivations; it is around these use-value commons that an ethical market and economy finds its place, and creates added value for the market. the commons is continuously co-produced by both citizen contributors and paid ethical labor from the cooperative/social sector.
why even have money..? or use-value..? shouldn’t/couldn’t that all be part of the trust element.. ie: Adam Greenfield’s write up of operation sandy, Iwan Baan‘s capture of self-organizing.. et al.. won’t money/value placement wind us up right where we are..? 10 day care centers ness..
p. 61 – (deciding/declaring what are public services to protect) – these services include, although this is not an exhaustive list, health services, schools and universities, power supply, transport and other local utilities such as the water or waste services.
so – what if health and school become irrelevant – because we redefine school. what if power supply and transport and water and waste, etc, etc, are solved because of the redefinition of school.. everyone (ie: hidden genius/insight now uncovered, need health, criminal, war, etc less)
commons: the definition of what is meant by commons, and what commoning is, is more complex, as this is an area in which different approaches and paradigms clash. in very general terms, commons is everything we share; in particular gifts of nature and creation s of society that belong to all of us equally, and should be preserved for future generation:
wouldn’t that be everything? if we change the word equally to equitably.. meaning.. everyone getting the same stuff isn’t needed for everyone getting a go everyday..
..in addition to shared resources, there are another two fundamental building blocks of the commons: commoners and commoning.
commoners are ll the members of a community, or even loosely connected groups of people, who steward and care for the shared resources, or produce common resources, adopting a form of self-government based on their capacity to give themselves rules (and incentives and sanctions to ensure they are respected, as well as mechanisms for monitoring and resolving conflicts) – called commoning
commoning is a participatory an inclusive form of decision-making and a governance system for sharing, producing and reproducing commons in the interest of present and future generations and in the interest of the ecosystem itself, where natural commons are concerned. still in general terms, although almost all goods and resources can potentially become objects of sharing, after a choice and decision by people, and thus become “shared resources” or “commons”, it is however probable that most of humanity would agree on a nucleus of resources which, at least in principle, “cannot not be commons”, on pain of denying life itself and the possibility of fee individual and collection development: primary, fundamental, natural or social resources, which range from water to knowledge. a future without couch-surfing, where all beds are given a monetary value and not shared is certainly less desirable than a future with couch=surfing; but a future without access to water for all is unacceptable.
but if we sync this whole thing.. and ie: we have tech like used to vote for the voice – making decisions an ongoing 24/7 conversation, as well as tech that offers everyone something else to do – the thing you can’t not do, so that we all spend less time feeling the need to quibble/nag/fight/prove/judge/feel-insecure, et al… seems we could potentially see everything as share\able. making so many things irrelevant, including money, policy, … no?
p. 62 – one of the mechanisms for the delivery of commonified public services are through contracts between the state as funding and quality control mechanism, and “solidarity cooperatives”, which are multi=stakeholder coops, bringing together all parties involved in a particular endeavor.. in a democratic structure of ownership and control. this new system of delivery has been pioneered in the field of social care…ie: northern italy emilia-romagna.., as well as quebec.
p. 63 – the ethical economy… the realized surplus goes directly to the workers who are also the contributors to the commons..
so what if there are people that are contributing in invisible ways.. ie: they are still processing/growing-up. think of a child.. who needs to experiment/play/observe. we don’t deny a child/baby of food, clothing, etc.. because they didn’t contribute – at that time. they are worth taking care of without pay back.
how do you decide who is contributing enough to be a commoner…? can you even..? isn’t that what got us to now..? what if we just decide.. if you’re human.. you’re part of us. no judgement.
your own song ness; tribe that doesn’t say thank you for food – because it’s a given that we all starve or we all eat; et al..
p 64 – the ethical economy – .. goals are not the accumulation of profit, but of ‘benefits’… to contribute to the ‘common good’ generally, and to the commons specifically.
p. 65 – infrastructure needed.. new forms of open value accounting will need to be developed.. in this context, we see the role of the partner state as being responsible for incubating the ethical economy through various support policies, which may take the following institutional form:
- institute for the promotion and defense of the commons: licensing et al
- institute for the incubation of the ethical economy, supports emergence of economic practices around common pools of knowledge. it helps the civic and ethical entrepreneurs to create livelihoods around these common pools.
- transition income – .. before commons can create thriving ethical economies, a period of civil engagement and investment is needed, which may not immediately yield livelihoods. .. materially support the creators of new common pools.. in transition periods.
p 66 – civil society.. the elementary fact of human existence.. what makes human life possible.. pursuit of the good life.. and in this sense, it is the institutions that arise from civil society (the schools, the voluntary associations, the trade unions, the courts, the political parties, etc) that provide the individual with the means to realize their own humanity and by so doing to perfect the whole of society in the process.
oh my. to school, unions, courts, political parties.. were those really arise from civil society..? or are they perpetuating a system of control/order/consumption/slavery..?
p. 67 – the state is an outgrowth of this impulse.
as Thomas Paine wrote: “the great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. it has its origins in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. it existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. ..
for these conceptions – the commons, civil society and civil economy – the notion of reciprocity is fundamental
reciprococity as fundamental…?
what about trust/love as fundamental..
Paine… abolish govt.. people doing it… ie: occupy sandy et al
reciprocity is the social mechanism that makes associational life possible. it is the foundation of social life. in its elements, reciprocity is a system of voluntary exchange between individuals based on the understanding that the giving of a favor by one will in future be reciprocated either to the giver or to someone else..
p 68 – reciprocity animates a vast range of economic activities that rest on the sharing and reinforcement of attitudes and values that are interpersonal and constitute essential bonds between the individual and the human community..
not so sure about that. what if they compromise community/bonds via this extrinsic motivator.. no matter how pretty it is..
reciprocity can itself become govt/measurement… that in the end compromises human nature.. no?
what is exchanged in reciprocal transactions are not merely particular goods, services and favors, but more fundamentally the expression of good will and the assurance that one is prepared to help others. it is the foundation of trust.
ugh. or might it be the benevolent killer of trust..?
consequently, the practice of reciprocity has profound social ramifications and entails a clear moral element. reciprocity is a key for understanding how the institutions of society work.
moral element? how societies work today.. maybe.. but how they could work..?
but it is also an economic principle with wholly distinct characteristics that embody social as opposed to merely commercial attributes. when reciprocity finds economic expression in the exchange of goods and services to people and communities it is the civil economy that results. it is in turn a key principle underlying the formation and use of commons..
or maybe not..what if it’s the exact piece keeping us from commons.. reciprocity seems to tab like.. if it underlies formation and use of commons… not commons.. no? because.. how to hear/see the silent/invisible…
never nothing going on.. ness
what if we need that most..? what if that (assumed) invisible/silent/non-worker – is the thing we all need to see/hear/realize/accept/become/…whatever..
civil economy organizations….their primary purpose is the promotion of collective benefit.
yes… so collective benefit is the blurred..undefined .. receipt..always… how would/could one define/know that. isn’t that what trust/listening is/does..?
definition/policy… one that gets us right back to today…
ie: who decides value.. enough.. to receive.. et al…
their social product is not just the particular goods or services that they produce, but human solidarity – the predisposition of people in a society to work together around mutual goals. another name for this is social capital. and, as opposed to the capitalist principle of capital control over labor, reciprocity is the means by which a social interest – whether it takes the form of labor, or citizen groups, or consumers – can exercise control over capital.
reciprocity as means of taking control over capital…
not sure it can… for the long haul at least.. it seems it would become capital. ist. ish..
trust.. love.. is what can ongoingly overcome capital ness..
what if we just listened and assumed good…
if everyone felt that… with space to explore… why would anyone rebel…?
nit-picky – but what if it’s pivotal. what if it’s why we haven’t yet.. i don’t know…
p. 69 – in our view, progressive public policy and legislation with respect to the civil economy will serve as the primary mechanism for creating a new social contract and social praxis that reflects the complementary aims and purposes of the state on the one hand and the collective values of civil society on the other.
what if we don’t need a social contract… what if that thinking is messing with us..?
p 78 – .. it is estimated that open hardware is generally produced at one eight of the cost of proprietary hardware.
currently, studies show that the transportation of goods, is three-quarters of the real ecological cost of production. many of these transportation costs can be eliminated by the stimulation of local and domestic industries that combine the generalization of the micro-factory system with the global engineering by open design communities, under the general motto: ‘what’s heavy is local, what’s light is global’.
p 80 – .. the internet, which allow for permissionless self-organization and value creation by productive communities that can operate both on a local and global scale.
p 81 – the promise of the social knowledge economy will therefore not be realized without profound changes in the regimes of property and governance.
like making them (property and governance) irrelevant.. no?
p 82 – while the immaterial commons of non-rival and shareable good can be protected by open licenses, the material production resulting from them should take place through ethical entities that are the property of the value producers themselves.
1. can we protect anything? gershenfeld ness.. only protection is giving everyone something else to do.. 2. property of the value producers..? question property.. but mostly question who decide value.. who’s to say who’s producing.. or what production looks like. none of us know. ever. so.. property of none of us (aka: all of us) perhaps..
sociocracy, holocracy, .. solidarity coops, community land trusts, … to common-ize and distribute property.
the key is to enable a pluralistic commonwealth rich in choices, that have as key requirement both productive democracy and the integration of environmental and social externalities.
our recommendation is for the creation of two institutions that can insure democratic ownership and governance within the sphere of the immaterial and material commons: 1. institute for pluralistic ownership – to know the ownership alternatives that are available.. 2. institute for pluralistic governance – to know the governance alternatives that are available..
doesn’t that perpetuate the idea of institution as confining ie: commonwealth rich in choices.. to ones we already have…? as opposed to new ones/ways..?
p 88 – bulleted items brings flash back to nctm/curriculum mapping meetings…
p 89 – the shift to an open knowledge-based commons society also crucially depends on the reconfiguration of politics..
p 97 – .. unless the collective values of civil society and the common good can determine how economies operate, the present model of political economy will do no more than tinker with a system that is in dire need of radical reform. – John Restakis
need of alternative.. that is an alternative regenerator/iterator.. perpetually
p 99 – .. the social economy and the partner state appear as central elements in any transition to a commons and co-operative-based economy.
p 106 – … the first point to be made is that of all the challenges that impeded the growth and potential of he social economy, the difficulty in accessing and controlling capital is surely the most crippling.
solving this problem is therefore essential for all types of social economy organizations, whether they operate in the field of human and social services or in the commercial economy.
there are many ways that public policy can expand the capacity of social economy organizations. rethinking and reforming tax policy is among the most important and the most potent.
p. 107 – all enterprises, whether commercial or social, must generate a profit (or surplus in the case of co-operatives) if they are to survive.
why..? how so..? – i guess – survive what..?
p 108 – japan currently has the most numerous and diverse forms of social or complementary currencies in use in the world. there were approximately 258 complementary currencies in use across japan in 2008.
fureai kippu is a reciprocity-based time banking system that was developed over 40 years ago to provide care for the elderly. . fureai kippu literally means “ticket for a caring relationship” and refers to the ticket or credit that is earned when one volunteers their time helping seniors.
the fureai kippu model is not without its problems, however. one of these has to do with designing reciprocal exchange systems that effectively match earned credits to services received.
p. 111 – to be clear: this is not to advocate for the commodification of social relations, ..
how do we keep from that..? if that’s what we’re trading..? esp if people can’t get access to care unless they have the – social currency.. no? (ie: why else would japan need to donate leftover credits to those who have none..)
p 112 – social market exchange… there are currently a number of social stock exchanges and they all share a common feature: the ability to invest in a social enterprise through the purchase of shares that yield a limited return to investors. this is one approach, and so long as returns are not speculative and contained by clear social priorities they can be a key source of needed capital. otherwise, returns to investors for support of social enterprise moves away from reciprocity and toward a capitalist conception of social investment. by contrast, what we are proposing is something that values both contribution and return in terms of reciprocity. this is the reason we use the term contributor as opposed to investor.
again – who decides who is contributing and who isn’t .. what entails contribution.. and what are we missing.. via our blindness..? no?
p 113 ish… brings back:
p 81 – the promise of the social knowledge economy will therefore not be realized without profound changes in the regimes of property and governance.
p 97 – .. unless the collective values of civil society and the common good can determine how economies operate, the present model of political economy will do no more than tinker with a system that is in dire need of radical reform. – John Restakis
p 114 – sounds more like we are redesigning/relabeling money.. rather than freeing society/us
p 115 – what this means in practical terms is that democratizing and decentralizing policies from government are not enough. what must also be considered is the educational and community development work that is needed to provide for the ongoing evolution of the civil institutions and culture attitudes that form the basis for this kind of civil and cultural transformation.
unless.. the kind of community we’re craving.. trying to design.. et al.. is natural to us.. if we would just trust each individual to listen to that (while having the luxury.. not after hours.. then is when we see the science of people in school ness) .. and let go of trying to control that transition.. and ongoingness.. of self-organizing..
p 116 – and as outlined in more detail below, there is an urgent need for higher-level academic research, education, and professional training for both civil servants and social economy actors.
p 119 – to achieve the kind of society envisaged by the national plan, a fundamental reframing of the role of the state is necessary. as stated by Ana Ravegna, director of equity and poverty reduction at the world bank, “this includes the implementation of structural policies aimed at providing all members of society with a far higher degree of socio-economic sovereignty and political agency so that citizens have “the wherewithal to operate normally and properly in.. society without having to beg or borrow from others, and without having to depend on their beneficence.” access to the essentials of a productive and rewarding life are not a function of market power but rather of the rights of citizenship.
two more sentences.. but that’s enough.. seems if we really want 100% we need to let go of the need to policy-ize and verbiage-ize and … etc. if we are ever going to get to a betterness.. buen vivir… that is ongoing… that perpetuates its own ongoing ness.. we have to let go. we can’t keep deciding what it is.. that is so similar to what testing is doing to public ed (Mary Ann) – we’re spending all our time/money/resources on inspectors to inspect the inspectors.. or documents/policies to free us.. when we just need to trust us. if we want everyone to have access – we can’t keep writing things up.
p 121 – … there has never been an instance in which the needs of civil society and the values of the social economy have predominated in the state’s management of economic and social policy. in theory and practice, the partner state is the first state formation to do this.
how does that indigenous tribe that doesn’t say thank you for food do it..?
p 122 – state – .. high degree of control.. built-in bias against uncertainty, innovation, and individual initiative. power is imposed and flows from top to bottom and legitimate exercise of this power rests internally with the designated managers of the civil bureaucracy and the ministers they report to, not to external stakeholders, except as mandated periodically, and very indirectly, through the broader electoral process… the internal economy of this system is based on the negotiation of tax or debt-financed budgets that are bargained over by a small group of ministers and senior civil servants. the main forms of control are over expenditures rather than outcomes (or desires), and insofar as power is exercised through control over budgets it is a system that encourages expenditure up to the budget allocated.
whoa. flashbacks of Ed.
p 124 – .. the state offers stability and scale while social economy generates creativity and social connection
interesting word choice..
p 125 – neither the privatization of social care, which instrumentalizes people for the generation of profit, nor the de-personalization of care by the state, which submits individuals to the impersonal requirements of bureaucracy, are capable of humanizing care or of responding adequately to the real needs of individuals and their communities. the creation of civil bodies, operating at local and regional levels, and providing a mechanism whereby individuals may directly determine the nature of the care they receive, is one indispensible condition for the operation of a partner state model with respect to the provision of social care. the other is a mechanism through which government and civil interests can collaborate on the design and delivery of human services, at local, regional, and national levels.
yes that. that is what is new.. no? a mechanism not yet tried. simple enough to be accessible/usable by everyone.. today. no prep/training required. and ongoingly so.
p 126 – (last of bulleted provisions): the development of participatory budgeting and the allocation of resources – including free and open access to government data – for the provision of human services at local, regional, and national levels.
in regard to insert of – free and open access to govt data – why not … to everything…
we need to now leap frog over the stages we missed.. catch up to potential… in the now… no..?
p 127 – ie of italian model… the codesign and delivery of social care services is supported through a system of subsidiarity that grant local authorities the power to identify service needs and to commission the provision of these services through accredited co-operative or other non-profit service groups.
accredited…? – so there’s one gap between the process and everyone..
in this way, the progressive democratization of human services entails a new governance matrix that maximizes citizen participation in the design and delivery of human services at those levels closest to the actual provision of care.
doesn’t actually maximize…
huge difference in facilitating participation of individual… and curiosity of individual… [ie: we’ve decided/define what participation looks like]
which s what we can now do
david graeber et al.. no?
p 137 – emilia romagna is a region of four million people in the north of italy. it is one of the best examples of how a government can employ co-operative and commons-based principles as a part of a partner state approach for both economic and social development.
over 8000 co-operatives account for almost 1/3 of the region’s gdp which is the highest per capita in italy… in the 1950s this was one of italy’s poorest regions. today, emilia romagna is among europe’s top ten performing economic regions. how was this accomplished?
and is this what we want..?
… via the clustering of small firms in industrial districts… the emilian model… represents a unique instance of successful co-operation in a capitalist framework….. “real service centres” to provide strategic assistance to the firms and the industrial districts of which they were a part…. while the particular services provided by each service centre were tailored to the needs of the sector in which they operated – ceramics, agricultural machinery, footwear, clothing, etc. – the overall strategy was the same: to increase the productive capacity and competence of individual firms and to ensure that the linkages between firms in the industrial districts remained strong and were further mobilized to strengthen the system as a whole…. funded through a mix of ervet funds and member fees and directed by elected representatives of the firms that used their services. … ie: research funds … were granted only to groups of firms that had agreed to work together.
p. 140 – just as these systems have proven successful in regions like emilia romagna and the industrial districts of germany, france and the us, so too have these models been adapted to serve the needs of regional economies in countries like sri lanka, mexico, and costa rica.
commons – its value lies in the fact of its free and open access. .. commons is generated through the practice of sharing. most importantly, a commons is the product of those social relationships that enable this use.
p 141 – traditionally commons have referred to such natural goods as water, fisheries, forests, pastures, etc. however, the concept has been broadened to include also non=material common resources such as knowledge, culture, free software, and the internet.
… the product and the indispensible support of those social relations that bind people to each other and to their environment.
the notion of collective rights is inseparable from the idea of the commons and of the common good. collective rights are those individual rights that belong to the individual as a member of a community. the individual has the enjoyment of these rights as protected by law – but only as a member of the community. it is the community as a whole that embodies these rights and exercises them through the agency of each individual member.
we are now in an era we can actualize the community as 7 billion people. which makes policy, et al, simpler.. because nationality descriptor becomes: human. ie: if you are human.. you are a member. no-strings attached value.
p 142 – more specifically, common goods refer to those things that may be used by anyone belonging to the community that has use rights over a commons.
enclosure and commodification of the commons undermine the material basis for collective forms of living and of the social relationships that in turn, reproduce those forms. they are an irreplaceable resource for re-generating a society’s store of social capital, for validating and manifesting the idea of social solidarity, and for anchoring both the values and the operations of civil society. as such, the protection and expansion of the commons must be a basic aim both of civil society and of any government that wishes to promote the social aims envisaged in the idea of buen vivir.
commons vs public – the commons however, should be distinguished from public goods or public property. while both contain the ideas of non-exclusion and social value, public goods are not controlled or managed by their users – public good and public institutions are controlled by the state..
what.. ? why..?
for this reason they ay also be privatized by the state, commodified, and sold for profit. today, the enclosure and commodification of public goods by governments and capital constitute the greatest encroachments against social wealth in the world.
the evolution of the relationship between states and capital, between public and private property, has led to a condition in which privatization and statism now endanger the very survival of the commons as an indispensible resource for the satisfaction of basic human needs…..but it is now clear that conventional models of democratic governance, conceived as govt acting on behalf of citizens, are no longer capable of protecting and preserving the public interest and what remains of the commons along with it. what is required is wholly new relationship in which formal political authority legitimizes its operation sin a given territory through the direct involvement of local communities in governance.
p. 143 – this means the enactment of legal protections for their reservation and the pursuit of public policies for their expansion.
unless we can all act in sync.. no?
a current example of this kind of legislation – focused on urban commons – is to be found in the city of bologna, which has become the first commons city in europe.
horizontal subsidiarity requires all levels of govts to find ways to share their powers and co-operate with single or associated citizens…
sounds like we’re making an effort to keep govt. why not decide now is when govt becomes irrelevant. we all can be govt. with our ability to have 24/7 convos with 7 billion people.
in this model, public administrations shall no longer govern only on behalf of citizens, but also together with citizens, acknowledging that citizens represent a “powerful and reliable ally capable of unleashing a great source of energy, talents, resources, capabilities and ideas that may be mobilized to improve the quality of life of a community or help contribute to its survival.”
so we are all the same. no need to acknowledge people. we just are. doesn’t that cut out a lot of crap policy..? inspectors of inspectors ness…?
in document for bologna regulation.. “… this regulation….governing the forms of co-operation between citizens and the administration …”
p 145 – a key provision of this regulation is the requirement for local authorities to designate municipally-owned assets as resources to be used for the realization of these aims.
wouldn’t that be a given in commons/commoning..? why must a local authority designate something like that..?
p 146 – finally, the implementation of these collaborative projects entails the enactment of a co-operative covenant or pact between govt and citizens. the co-operative pact describes the work to be done, the procedures to be followed, the monitoring and evaluation of the results, and the resources, guarantees, and responsibilities involved.
p 147 – but while the bologna initiative has developed the regulatory framework…. these municipal assets are still owned by the state and as such are public.. not entirely common in the sense we have described. for this to be the case, the management of the common resource needs to be paired with legal protections... for this to have effect, a form of collective and civil ownership must be devised.
? – doesn’t seem logical/sane. a need for legal protection from the state.. ?
p 148 – examples of these forms of commons ownership and governance, as well as the rules for their operation, have been well documented by Elinor Ostrom. successful examples of their use range from the co-op management of japan’s fishery -.. to indigenous farmers of bali.
i propose the Baan policy.. abandoning policy.. just see what happens..
p 150 – enormous progress has been made in citizen participation. however, the challenge lies in changing the attitudes of citizen, which are still persistently passive. this culture of a citizenry passively dependent on state guardianship must be limited.
it’s like an all or nothing thing. you can’t get people ongoingly participating if you’re holding their hand.. telling them to ask permission, et al.. no? the mobius strip of participation/engagement.. raised eyebrow ness
constructing an active, committed, and thoughtful citizenry demands a more profound institutional reform of the state, so citizen participation can influence public governance. it also requires creating the conditions and capacities necessary to promote, sustain and assure citizen-led processes to promote good living, and to institutionalize a constructive dialogue that generates egalitarian, solidary, free, dignified, and responsible actions, in harmony with nature and re…..
? – or a blur of it.. (state ness).. so citizen participation can influence public governance..? institutionalize a constructive dialogue..? that is egalitarian.. free.. dignified..
how about no labels..
the kinds of organizational forms that are cultivated by govts are important in determining how citizens come to acquire the skills and attitudes that enable them to play the roles demanded of them by the partner state.
? – again sounds like a role reversal.. who’s the partner state for..?
p. 152 – the transformation of these structure into partnering and enabling institutions with meaningful inclusion of civil groups is an essential undertaking for transition to a partner state model. this entail a comprehensive training and human development strategy that provides decision makers and civil service workers with the concepts, skills, experiences, and attitudes that are fundamental for implementing an entirely new conception of inclusive governance and socio-economic development.
seems if there’s training. .. it’s not inclusive. if there are titles.. it’s not inclusive. and if it’s not inclusive.. not sustainable.. we have to trust that the training needed is within each and every person..
p 153 – one of our primary recommendations for transitioning to a partner state is the creation of a co-operative university to serve as the nation’s primary research, education, and training facility for generating the attitudes, knowledge, and professional skills needed for implementing the policies and realizing the aims of a partner state.
whoa. recreating where we are now guys. this is lacking in trust of people.. in the city.. as the day.. to do what they need to do. that lack of trust is what got us here. no?
if it’s not natural.. ie: already in each person.. it’s not going to be sustainable. the good news is.. it’s natural. the buen vivir we crave.. comes from human beings in their natural state. we just need to get back to that. we just need to uncover that.
if you must call upon a co-op university.. the best one is each city. already happening. no rules. free people will learn what is essential/beneficial to them.
p. 154 – the organizational and operational structure of the uni would embody the principles of co-operative governance outlined in this paper and would serve as a model for the transmission of the co-operative and commons concepts and kills articulate above.
so why not just have the uni be the city. the city be the uni…. no?
city as school/uni.
p 155 – it follows that unless the collective values of civil society and the common good can determine how economies operate, the present model of political economy will do no more than tinker with a system that is in dire need of radical reform. the partner state is one way of ushering in this reform.
bravo and grazie to all your work. but i think we can do better. i think we can’t not.
p 163 – critique of cognitive capitalism, ie: ip rights stifle innovation
p 166 – in us – flow of patents has quadrupled over the last thirty years.. productivity fell…
find/follow commons transition:
more from the site:
interview by Enric Durang:
..can you define Commons Transition, and what it means to you?
Well, for me, when we are talking about transition and developing commons, what we are talking about is moving away from a capitalist economy based on private incomes and private profits, to a new kind of economy, where the main focus is the commons.
Do you see some existing examples of Commons Transition today?
There are more and more examples of commons resources. ……But what’s more difficult is to organize as a whole system or way of living related to the commons, no? This is not yet so widespread, perhaps because these commons are being created as volunteer work by people, or with some kind of specific funding, but not connected as a systemic whole.
… What we really need, I think, is to put all of these existing things in a framework, structured in a way that they can be recognized and understood together as a systemic, commons creation, not only as isolated projects.
…And to have more direct relationships and to think about public in the hands of the government, political relations to the commons, perhaps we will need bigger success stories at the global level with the commons, no?
on policy – dec 2014 – interview w/Chris Tittle and Yassi Eskandari:
Chris: To me, a commons transition speaks to the process of communities progressively controlling and self-governing more and more of their collective resources, by and for themselves and future generations. The “transition” implies that we are moving from one system of organizing society – in this case, global capitalism – to a wholly distinct socio-ecological paradigm rooted in age-old practices referred to as “the commons.” What’s particularly interesting about this transition is that, in many ways, it’s a return to principles of managing our homes that evolved over millennia before the onslaught of industrial capitalism. Our contemporary context is obviously much different from the indigenous and peasant cultures that sustained commons-based societies for thousands of years, but we have much to learn from them in how to undertake this transition.
Chris: There are great examples of healthy commons all around the world. Some of the most interesting examples of commons transitions, though, seem to be happening in communities that have been particularly devastated by the forces of capitalism. In Detroit, Michigan, for example, the industrial economy has almost completely collapsed, leaving entire communities abandoned by both the market economy and the state. In response, these marginalized, mostly African-American communities have come together to collectively manage their own water supply (People’s Water Board) when the city started shutting off water to homes, and to cultivate a network of black-owned urban farms and food hubs (Detroit Black Food Security Network) to provide healthy, locally-grown food while building autonomy and self-reliance.
I think the commons offers a way of tying a lot of movements together – social justice, environmentalism, economic and food justice, localism, bioregionalism, open source, etc. – and we could see an increasing number of solidarity movements across the globe uniting under the idea of a commons transition.
indeed.. a problem deep enough ness
Yassi: The Sustainable Economies Law Center and Shareable co-published Policies for Shareable Cities: A Primer for Urban Leaders in 2013 because we realized that grassroots sharing economy efforts were being stifled by legal barriers at every turn. Of course, legal barriers to the sharing economy span all levels of government, but many legal burdens are imposed at a local level, thus our focus on cities. . In writing this brief, it was important for us to clarify that in most cases, the laws challenging the grassroots sharing economy are outdated and were not originally intended to prohibit the types of activities to which they are now posing a barrier. Prevailing regulatory structures such as zoning codes, building codes, securities laws, employment laws, and health and safety laws – though essential protections in many circumstances – do not account for the fundamental difference in purpose, power, risk, and profit in the sharing economy. In the wake of market and state failures to meet the basic needs of communities, the innovative ways people have found to provide for themselves and each other should be cultivated with new policies, not prohibited by the old.
so policy to fight/replace policy with policy.. or what if we just have 24/7 moment by moment decisions.. make policy irrelevant.
oct 2014 – Michel in ireland:
THE COOPERATIVE MODEL REVISITED
relationship between commons and coops
commons – shared resource – managed by whole community on behalf of community.. not owned by individuals (like coops)
ie: not machine coops, but commons of machinery..
rival vs non-rival, commons – anti-rival goods.. the more you share… the richer you become.. don’t lose anything by sharing
3 major revolutions in human productivity
1\ the invention of coercion – ie: slavery, serfhood (instead of keeping 100%, kept 50%)
2\ capitalism – instead of purely external negative coercion.. it has external/internal motivation
3\ commons oriented peer production – ie: wikipedia – no one coerced or paid.. not a commodity, not for sale; fablab; farm hacking; beehives…
12 min – everything you buy today – about half of cost is debt servicing; it costs 3 times as much to transport an object than to make it; ip is the main way to make money.. ie: 70% of profit going to apple
13 min – marx didn’t believe coops could overtake capitalism… we have increasingly commons but if you want to make a living you have to be labor for capital.. so historical time for coops to jump in .. no longer dwarfish form..
there’s no reason now that we can’t build global coops combined with digital commons..
psych of a commoner – input: if i contribute to wikipedia, linux, et al, … and someone else tells me what to do, i won’t do it. breaks down hierarchy.. output: remains open, won’t do it if it becomes owned by someone…. but if you want to make a living doing this.. need a coop
digital sharable, no loss, machine sharing needs form – coops
proposal of open coops –
1\ has a common good in its statutes.. not for profit but for common need/use
2\ everyone has a say
3\ co-produce commons (patents – flatten innovation)
4\ globality – if we only do local – we don’t have power for global transformation
23 min – oversupply of broadband in fiber – not being distributed because it would destroy market
today open source movement uses sharing licenses.. the more communistic the licenses the more capitalistic the practices – we have a cyber communism operating at the heart of capitalism – the problem is – this can grow very quickly (good) but on the base of profit
what if we change the license to: if you’re for profit and you contribute – fine. but if you are for profit and don’t contribute – have to pay fine.
recommending – commons surrounded by business ecosystem of coops
foundations aren’t classic ngo’s
ngo approach – have a problem – need resources to solve problem.. scarcity – so raise funds to pay to solve problem
commons approach – have a problem – create an ecosystem where everyone can create solutions to solve problem. don’t command the work… enable/empower system of corporation to continue over time… (conferences, certification schemes, ..?)
coops have vital role between commons and capital
in youth – coop is not well known – they think start up. and the corporative world commons is not well known
june 2015 – block chain to facilitate commons
first part on things that perhaps don’t need facilitation? on theory of value ness.. – Graeber
HOW THE BLOCKCHAIN MIGHT SUPPORT A COMMONS
Distributed Organisations & the Trust Web: One significant claim is that blockchain-based technologies such as Ethereum can support and scale distributed forms of cooperation on a global scale.
Where questions about how to reach consensus, negotiate trust and especially scale interactions beyond the local are pervasive in the commons, the blockchain looks set to be a game changer.
In this context, the blockchain is presented as an algorithmic tool to foster trust in the absence of things like social capital, physical colocation or trusted third-party management. These are actually referred to as ‘consensus’ algorithms, and they are the staple of projects such as Ethereum and Ripple. As David Cohen has described it “Trust, rules, identity, reputation and payment choices are embedded at the peer level. Participants arrive already trusted and decentrally acknowledged”. C
global systemic change
from shares on dec 2015
THE PROMISE OF THE COMMONS – 20 min version
3 min – David – 30 yrs ago worked in govt.. saw how govt wasn’t a very good trustee of our resources.. i wanted to explore how the commons might be a better alternative for our collective resources..
1 min in .. et al… fitting with Siddhartha‘s.. thinking.. find the natural.. replace/restore it.. trust the natural to take over.. self/natural-organizing ness..
10 min – on talking policy and working together to take over
hearing Jordan… that tinkering with policy is a distraction..
14 min – on patenting of genes… not so much to gain money.. but to keep others from it.. a serious problem
16 min – on trusting people/communities… for self-organizing ness
17 min – on our one ness.. genetically.. but we’ve let not-us ness come in..
needing to re install rna ness
may 2017 fb share by Michel
the document will go live tomorrow, here’s a teaser by TNI in Amsterdam;
5 practical guidelines for achieving commons transition
The Commons is neither the resource, the community that gathers around it, nor the protocols for its stewardship, but the dynamic interaction between all these elements.
1. Pool resources wherever possible
Pooling both immaterial and material resources is a priority. This capacity to pool productive knowledge is a key characteristic to obtain both “competitive” and “cooperative” advantage.
2. Introduce *reciprocity
To ensure the wellbeing and continuation of these assets, material production demands the principle of reciprocity, …This can be achieved through open contributory *accounting systems,
*reciprocity: the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one country or organization to another
exchanging ness is killer..
**accounting (the action or process of keeping financial accounts.) ness is killer
accounting ness is killer
3. Shift from redistribution to pre-distribution and empowerment
..by implementing radical democratic and even rotational procedures and practices
4. Subordinate capitalism
But is the intention to get rid of markets altogether? Markets would continue to exist in a commons-oriented society, but they would be predominantly generative as opposed to extractive. By this we mean that markets would *serve the commoners. Commons-based peer production participants today struggle to create livelihoods as they produce commons. While they could be supported by a partner state through basic income and subsidies, commoners can also create new market entities to facilitate the sustainability of their contributions and allow them to keep contributing to the commons.
*pretty sure that’s always been the intention.. and see where it gets us.. we need to disengage from measuring transactions.. otherwise.. we compromise us
One way to achieve this is through the use of CopyFair Licenses. In this approach, the free sharing of knowledge — the universal availability of immaterial commons — is preserved, but *commercialization is made conditional on reciprocity between the sphere of the capitalist market and the sphere of the commons.
*partial is killer.. we have the means today to disengage completely from this.. why would we not..
5. Organize at the local and global levels
A further suggestion is the creation of translocal and transnational structures that would aim to have global effects and change the power balance on the planet. The only way to achieve systemic change at the planetary level is to build counter-power, i.e. alternative global governance
Good short primer on Commons & P2P (~30min read)
“We believe that a Commons Transition implies developing tools and policies that facilitate open, participatory input across society. This type of transition is meant to prioritize the needs of the people most affected by changing political, cultural and environmental circumstances — but what if those people aren’t getting the message?
The Commons Transition Primer project addresses that concern, and this magazine-style publication is just the start. We hope it’s a good step forward in how we communicate and advocate for P2P and commons-based practices. This isn’t a basic “Commons for dummies” effort, though. We’ve worked hard to retain the complexity of the movement, but with inviting language and images to draw people in.”
The European Commons Assembly, which launched last November, is one of the featured case studies to show that the Commons is thriving and coalescing into new configurations at all levels.
Commons, as described by author David Bollier, are a shared resource which is cogoverned by its user community, according to the rules and norms of that community. Commons include the gifts of nature, such as the water and land, but also shared assets or creative work, such as cultural and knowledge artefacts. The sphere of the Commons may contain either rivalrous goods and resources, which two people cannot both have at the same time, or non-rival goods and resources, which are not depleted by use. These types of goods or resources are either inherited or are humanmade.
The Commons, according to commons scholar and activist Silke Helfrich, can be understood from at least four different perspectives. As a whole, they can be perceived and acted upon as: 1. Collectively managed resources, both material and immaterial, which need protection and require a lot of knowledge and know-how. 2. Social processes that foster and deepen thriving relationships. These form part of complex socio-ecological systems which must be consistently stewarded, reproduced, protected and expanded through commoning. 3. A new mode of production focused on new productive logics and processes. 4. A paradigm shift, that sees commons and the act of commoning as a worldview.
It is said, “There is no commons without commoning”.
The Commons is neither the resource, the community that gathers around it, nor the protocols for its stewardship, but the dynamic interaction between all these elements.
If “commons” is the “what”, “P2P” could be considered the “how”.
P2P collaboration is often permissionless, meaning that usually no one needs the permission of another to contribute. P2P systems are generally open to all contributors and contributions, but the quality and inclusion of the work is usually determined “posthoc” by a layer of maintainers and editors, as in the case of Wikipedia….It is about non-coercive, non-hierarchic relations, and its qualities have the potential to profoundly change human society
P2P facilitates the act of “commoning,” as it builds capacities to contribute to the creation and maintenance of any shared and co-managed resource (a commons).
The original Greek etymology of the word “economy” describes the management of household resources. How can we extend the care-oriented interactions we find in healthy homes to the larger economy, where networked communities steward the resources of our common home, planet Earth?
The relational dynamic of P2P is not something new. It has existed since the dawn of humanity, and was the originally dominant form of relationship in the nomadic hunter-gathering societies. It then lost its dominance in the clan-based arrangements of alliances of tribes, where reciprocity was dominant, and later to the hierarchy-based distribution of resources that characterized pre-capitalist states and empires.
But while such prefigurative approaches are key components for the construction of sensible alternatives, they typically develop within the constraints of existing systems. Whether through the enclosures brought on by neoliberalism or the increasingly authoritarian and exclusionary politics of the further right, the expected “normality” (job security, pensions, unemployment supports, fair working hours and conditions) that citizens have experienced or aspire to will likely continue to erode. ..This is why the Commons movement must ..transcend it with a radically reimagined politics that facilitates social value creation and community-organized practices. (“Political” here refers not only to political representation but also to the actionable rights of those affected by political decisions, i.e., the citizenry.) This breaks down the false dichotomy between those wanting to build alternatives, and those working to enable change through hacking existing political channels. Both prefigurative and institutional lines of action are necessary to build a balanced polity, and fortunately, this political approach is already in progress, as we will see in the sections below. But first, let’s examine how the characteristics of commons-based peer production can inform the organization of civil society and *totally revolutionize our methods of governance and the role of the State.
*what we need.. but not what i’m seeing here.. we have to go deeper/simpler.. i don’t see the above as transcending w radically reimagined politics..
..Nowadays we use the term “enclosure” to denounce heinous acts such the ongoing privatization of intellectual property,..
This modern tendency towards enclosures and turning relationships into services and commons into commodities, has been described by Commons scholar David Bollier as “The great invisible tragedy of our time”.
anything that we transition to.. if it is not simple enough.. i see it as an enclosure.. ie: if you have to be trained for it..
Citizen-commoners and their social movements would drive the existing state form into partner state forms. These would recognize the individual and collective autonomy of citizens, just as the civil rights, suffrage, labor and women’s movements forced the state to adapt to new social demands.
that’s our example..? when we see it’s not working for us even today..?
As long as we live in an unequal class-based society, a state-based mechanism is arguably needed.
right.. so why wouldn’t we take this opp of a lifetime.. to leap to a nother way.. for (blank)’s sake…
Social movements, in this case those emerging from the shift towards commonsbased peer production, will exert pressure on the state. If these social movements become majoritarian, this could lead to a transformation from the present “market state” to a “partner state” form representing the interests of the commons sector. Ideally, as this state and commons-based civil society would create the conditions for a re-emergence of human equality, the state would gradually be “commonified” as opposed to privatized, and radically transformed. This is not an all or nothing proposal, and could occur at all kinds of scales, *but real systemic change at the macro-level of global society would eventually require societal reorganization under this new configuration
again.. let’s just leap there (actually.. beyond org/configuration you’re proposing here).. we have the means.. right now
Cities like Ghent, Bologna, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Belo Horizonte, Naples, Montreal, Lille, Madrid and Bristol are increasing transparency, enabling participatory budgeting, facilitating the creation of social care co-ops, turning empty lots into community gardens, co-creating skill and tool sharing programs, among many other locally relevant actions. Perhaps most consequential are the new citizen-led municipalist coalitions. A number of these have emerged in Spain’s towns and cities, and triumphed in all the major population centers (see below). Taken together, these efforts demonstrate that the logic of the Commons, coupled with the democratic, participatory relations enabled by P2P systems, can reinvigorate and instill a new sense of purpose in today’s political field. *The challenge ahead lies in developing this emerging political movement at higher levels of complexity: the regional, national and transnational level, while preserving the characteristics of local dynamism.
But these municipal platforms are not solely designed for local citizens.They must form part of a multi-level structure capable of operating at the national and transnational levels. …..Participatory conversation creates political change, and the feminization of politics is not only about the political work itself; it also means a change of style
But, as explained above, it is essential that this new narrative be grounded in scalable, existing best practices which are accessible to changemakers and civil-society organizations, *not only to existing institutions.
has to be everyone.. everyone from the get go.. not just people labeled.. changemakers or society orgs..
The post-capitalist future requires commoners to be change agents, and to have commoners, we must expand the sphere of the commons. Mentioned earlier, this includes engaging with state politics, which has been the strategy of all *successful social movements to date (the labor movement, universal suffrage movements, women’s and gay rights movements, etc). For this, we must find **synergies and convergences among prefigurative forces creating the new economy, and find political expressions for them so they may act in alliance with other emancipatory social and political forces.
*who’s defining that
**deep/simple/open enough for 7bn.. today..
33 [goes into 5 ways to transition – on medium post above..]
under 2\reciprocity: Can we transform the renting economy of Uber and AirBnB into a genuine sharing economy worthy of that name? A new digital feudalism of centralized network data seen on platforms such as Facebook, Google, Uber and AirBNB, threatens to deregulate the gains of the labor movement while accelerating the ubiquity of precarity. There are solutions: Platform Cooperativism aims to *democratize the ownership and governance of the digital platforms which increasingly mediate our daily lives. Meanwhile, Open Cooperativism explores the synergies between commons-based peer production and the cooperative movement to create agile, resilient economic entities that actively co-create commons while providing **livelihoods for commoners
*we have to disengage from ownership and earning a living ness.. resilient econ entities..?
3: FAIR, RECIPROCAL DISTRIBUTION:
fair and reciprocal will compromise/kill us.. waste our energies.. let’s just do have/need ness.. we have the means for that
What decision-making is for planning, and pricing is for the market, mutual coordination is for the commons. ..In short, we must distinguish between commons-centric models that work for rival resources and those that work for non-rivalrous resources, and create hybrid combinations for each particular case.
History shows that political revolutions do not precede deep reconfigurations of power, but rather complete them.
? have we had revolutions..? maybe we can’t look at history for this one.. because it begs (and times allow for) a complete change..
The Commons and the prefigurative forms of a new value regime already exist. The commoners are already here, and they’re already commoning; in other words, the Commons transition has begun.
This Primer draws on over ten years of work at the P2P Foundation. ..Primer itself has been collaboratively written by Michel Bauwens, Vasilis Kostakis, Stacco Troncoso and Ann Marie Utratel. There are also brief contributions and excerpts from the work of David Bollier (Law for the Commons), and Nicole Leonard and Frederic Sultan (European Commons Assembly). Substantial parts of the text have been adapted from a forthcoming book, under the title “Peer-to-Peer: The Commons Manifesto”, by Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Kostakis. The book will published in early 2018 by Westminster University Press and will be freely available online. The contents wouldn’t be what they are without the help of Joanna Barelkowska, Patrick Barrett, David Bollier, Tiberius Brastaviceanu, James Burke, Kevin Carson, William Charlton, Daniel Chavez, the Degrowth reading group at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Wolfgang Drechsler, Sharon Ede, Aline Duriez-Jablonka, Chris Giotitsas, Neal Gorenflo, Baruch Gottlieb, Simon Grant, Heike Loeschmann, Silke Helfrich, Ted Howard, Alexandros Kioupkiolis, Dmytri Kleiner, Nicolas Krausz, Alnoor Ladha, Donnie Maclurcan, Vasilis Niaros, Vasilis Ntouros, Evangelos Papadimitropoulos, Alekos Pantazis, George Papanikolaou, Alex Pazaitis, Daniel Pinchbeck, Christina Priavolou, Thanasis Priftis, ROAR magazine’s editors, Douglas Rushkoff, Nathan Schneider, Felix Stadler, Henry Tam, Jaap van Till, Hilary Wainwright, Erik Olin Wright and Zemos98
First Impressions on the Commons Transition in Ghent: An Interview with Michel Bauwens | P2P Foundation https://t.co/8EX4RJ1KRB
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/KevinCarson1/status/866756601625145345
300,000 inhabitants, with a huge student population, and a prestigious history. It was once the biggest city in northwestern Europe (12th-13th century). It has had a progressive red-green-blue city coalition for more than a decade and has already been active in supporting many citizen initiatives.
We are using the commons narrative to catalyze more convergence across projects, so that they can have a systemic effect on the city ecosystem and even influence policy making.
The key issue for me is how we can move from the current situation of fragmentation towards the beginning of an alternative eco-system that is sustainable and socially fair.
try the above Michel
The municipality commissioned the project. It is the first municipality in the world to look strategically at the commons transition, that’s not trivial.
The difficulty of the project is not to be underestimated however, i.e. how to get more convergence and systematicity amongst commons actors in the various sectors, and how to realize more voice and political clout. *How can we tackle the more infrastructural commons requirements, such as space and land, which is subject to tremendous speculative activity and gentrification? How can we fund the commons transition, for example, through circular finance that tackles the cost of negative externalities and supports commons initiatives which drastically improve the material footprint of human economic and social activities?
*try the above.. as infrastructure
Alnoor Ladha (@alnoorladha) tweeted at 4:34 PM on Mon, Jun 05, 2017:
Important piece by the @P2PFoundation – Promoting the Commons in the Time of Monsters – https://t.co/w0GcMUaztS @TheRulesOrg
If we can imagine a commons-oriented future including a commons politics, it practically becomes a moral imperative to do everything in our power to bring that better future to reality.
2017 – ghent