michel on accumulation


via michel fb share:

WHAT DO YOU THINK, responses welcome:

Arguably, pre-capitalist class systems were dependent on accumulation through military might,and capitalism through capital accumulation; this ‘power’ constraints cooperation and creativity and directs where it goes; for commoners today, there is no such obvious power accumulation. Would it be possible to argue that the *form of power accumulation we need, and where the triple-H are perhaps superior, is organized **collective intelligence; in any case, in this crisis, we have seen remarkable mobilizations and solutions coming from the movement, faced with a substntial market and state failure

i think this power accumulation/constraint is not a natural thing so *not something we need..

ie: ‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows

testart storage law: ‘storage expresses a distrust of nature‘ – Alain Testart

descola control law: ‘the control of the stock becomes the central point‘ – Philippe Descola

same with **collective intelligence (at least seeing it as a focus).. what humanity needs more is a focus on augmenting interconnectedness

One of my own hypothesis is that we have to find ways to ‘value’ these contributions; i.e. the present system only rewards extractive value that produces commodities; the key transformation is that the regenerative counter-forces need to find a way to accumulate through contributions.

[extractive: of or involving extraction, especially the extensive extraction of natural resources without provision for their renewal.]

i think ‘value’ ing contributions is part of the poison/extraction.. part of tragedy of the non common

i’m thinking that rewarding/incentivizing human activity/art is extractive/commodifying..

perhaps the best way to ‘accumulate thru contributions’ is to trust that the art/energy of 8b alive people is enough (but has to be simultaneous or it won’t work/dance)

so key is how to listen to and facil that chaos

art (by day/light) and sleep (by night/dark) as re\set.. to fittingness

I’ve been thinking that Bernard Lietaer’s ideas about dual currency systems is one of the ways we need to pursue this.


Bernard Lietaer (7 February 1942 – 4 February 2019) was a civil engineer, economist, author and professor. He studied monetary systems and promoted the idea that communities can benefit from creating their own local or complementary currency, which circulate parallel with national currencies.

cc Jordan Hall

michel responding:

 it’s a human thing, and thus a natural thing as we are natural beings that construct social worlds with their own emergent properties; since 5,000 years, we live in power-based class societies and since 250 or so , in a predominanty capitalist one, where capital drives choices, aided and mitigated through state functions and social pressure. This is not a system that can be changed by mere wishful thinking, it requires power to change. I don’t see any way out by mere organic activity of people of good will; of course, the power of change agents cannot be a mere replication of the current form of power; it has to be another kind of power, imho

ok.. yeah.. another kind of power.. and i’d see that power as the energy of 8b alive people (which would be unlike no power we’ve yet seen) ..

i think a key we keep missing.. is it has to be all of us or we’re limiting that power/potential ..

so how to let go of our listening hierarchy in order to hear every voice..everyday.. and use that as our data to connect us and allocate resources as truly needed et al

michel responding:

in any case whether that is sufficient or not, it’s a necessary and good thing to do

perhaps more sufficient than anything we’ve yet tried.. (focus of what i’ve been working on last 10 yrs)

ie: tech as it could be.. with 2 convers as infra

which would address simultaneous ness.. which is what we keep missing


little later in day .. thread via simone on twitter:

Emerging trends of organising have – as we’ve seen in this article – pushed organising towards more networked structures with smaller, networked divisions.

Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/meedabyte/status/1255888287597760513

(not sure what article he’s referencing)

@meedabyte: To some extent, such a direction of evolution for the organization overlaps with David Ronfeldt seminal work on the TIMN (Tribes, Institutions, Markets, Networks) framework and mirrors it into the firm.

@meedabyte: As the organization embraces the network structure therefore becomes smaller and more specialized, more transient and more functional to the dynamics of the “fluid” society of the information age – in Deleuzian terms, a society of control

@meedabyte: a new theory of the firm emerges to confront the crisis of capitalist governance (involving the *limits of enclosure as a tool of capitalist accumulation) into an effecting organizational theory for the post-industrial and post-capitalistic age.

this is what i’m meaning above.. any power ..(other than the power/energy 8b alive people.. new everyday).. is an enclosure.. (the going to 8b everyday helps us approach the limits of neg infinity of that enclosure)..

so how to best org so limits of enclosure approach negative infinity

perhaps let go of both accumulation (testart storage law: ‘storage expresses a distrust of nature‘ – Alain Testart) and control/power (descola control law: ‘the control of the stock becomes the central point‘ – Philippe Descola)

ie: an undisturbed ecosystem/common\ing et al