also thinking.. on birthing a nother way.. for all of us..
reading code/recode.. Nathan facilitated second interview..
here his article on them aug 2014:
Can Monasteries Be a Model for Reclaiming Tech Culture for Good?
perhaps unMonasteries, sparing the dogma and self-flagellation, can keep alive the promise of a liberating Internet as companies like Google and Facebook tighten their grip.
The unMonastery’s gestation began in 2011, the year of Occupy and the Indignados, a time of so many ambitious undertakings with ambivalent outcomes. The Council of Europe’s ominous-sounding Social Cohesion Research and Early Warning Division sought, in the words of its chief, “to have a better idea of the extent of insecurity in society.” The international body sponsored the invention of Edgeryders, “an open and distributed think tank” of people working through an online social network and a series of conferences. They produced a report about the economic crisis—a “Guide to the Future.” Soon the council’s funding ended, but Edgeryders pressed on as an online network with more than 2,000 members and an incorporated entity. The group presents itself as a company in the business of “open consulting.”
At the end of its first conference in Strasbourg in June of 2012, a small circle of Edgeryders, with glasses of wine in their hands and under the shadow of a church, dreamed up the unMonastery. The idea was this: find a place with unmet needs and unused space to lend a building to a group of young hackers. Live together cheaply, building open-source infrastructure for the commons. Repeat until it becomes a network.
The Washington Post. Tech could no longer claim to be a post-political insurgency; it had become the empire.
The unMonastery vision went viral in the Edgeryders community. It fit into a widely felt longing at the time, evident in many parts of Europe and North America where protest had broken out in 2011, to start figuring out practical alternatives to the failed order. Occupy activists were learning to set up worker co-ops, and their counterparts in Spain laid plans for Internet-driven political parties. This was the period, too, of Edward Snowden’s leaks, of Aaron Swartz’s suicide, of blockades against techie commuter buses in San Francisco. Google became one of the world’s leading lobbyists, and Jeff Bezos bought
wow just copying it all so far
ben vickers.. insight – much to read here .. just go to link above
documentation can trump even failure; others can study the attempt, tweak it and try again.
Elf Pavlik, a 31-year-old web developer with pony-tailed hair, had been living for five years without touching money or government IDs.
Keeping track of the longer view was the job of Bembo Davies, a Canadian-turned-Norwegian widower and grandfather, a veteran of the circus and the stage who updated his WordPress chronicle in august prose.
or when they worried about whether they’d done any good for Matera whatsoever, they reminded each other, “Everything’s a prototype.”
makes organizing ourselves look easy by paying us to pretend that’s what we’re doing. Maybe the longing for leaderless swarms in the protests of 2011 partly stemmed from the image of a team at a software conglomerate, or a noncommercial, open-source project nonetheless parasitic on its corporate sponsors. But the kind of democracy and community we glean from tech culture lacks a deep structure, a core; tech culture is particularly good at disguising the reality that its core has become investor returns and Wall Street IPOs. The CEO’s absolute authority dresses up like charisma. Rapt in admiration, we the people are being de-skilled out of actual self-organizing. A few months in, the unMonastery’s communications had become a jungle of platforms, many of them proprietary, with few clear lines between inward and outward: the public Edgeryders website, public Trello boards, a closed Google Group and public folders full of Google Docs.
Building a new society in the shell of the old can seem so impossibly hard. Capitalism, meanwhile,
Like just about everything, all of this has happened before.
“Making the democratic most of the Information Age,” Roszak wrote, “is a matter not only of technology but also of the social organization of that technology.” – 80s
rushkoff os law – we need to go deep/simple/open .. ps in the open – io dance ness
Offers of real estate for a new unMonastery have come from Greece, Spain and up near Venice.
Michel Bauwens, an elder statesman in Europe’s peer-to-peer movement, wrote an open letter to Pope Francis suggesting that underused churches and monasteries not be sold on the real-estate market but repurposed as sites of a new collaborative economy. He cited the unMonastery as a model.
These relationships can seem like compromises with the past, but what seems new and original almost never really is, except to the degree that we fail to remember.
Of course the @washingtonpost thinks #OregonUnderAttack is about hating gov’t. But it’s also about the meaning of common land & resources.
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/nathanairplane/status/683784369610174464
jan 2016 – are you ready counter apocalypse
When I and several hundred thousand people demanding action on climate change marched through Midtown Manhattan on September 21, 2014, apocalypse was on our lips. We were marching to save the world—to change everything, as the propaganda beckoning us to participate had said. Wave after wave of marchers paraded through the city, carrying hand-painted banners and giant puppets, hopeful and joyful despite the likelihood of more political inaction to follow.
After a few hours in the streets, we could hear each other’s tired voices wondering what it might take for real change to happen.
There are many kinds of apocalypse stories. One can wait for the climate apocalypse to come, or one can see that it is happening already, especially in the pockets and places far from centers of power, where people live closest to the earth. These people are already on the brink. Things can get worse before they get better, but who says that they must
dispensationalism—a wildly popular, yet little-discussed, kind of Christian theology—that the idea of things getting worse before they can get better has been hidden in plain sight.
Those who long for crisis, and who imagine that it is necessary, betray their privilege.
Wherever we are, those facing apocalypse at the margins can be our guides, and our hope. … Grace Lee Boggs was heralding the kind of counter-apocalypse Catherine Keller writes about. Boggs and other Detroiters have been resisting the distant investors trying to take over their city, …“Instead of pursuing rapid economic development and hoping that it will eventually create community,” Boggs writes, “we need to do the opposite—begin with the needs of the community and create loving relationships with one another and with the earth.”
This is basic Sermon-on-the-Mount stuff. And it bears a simple and utterly non-dispensational revelation: Things will get better if we make things better for each other now, if we survive and love our neighbors where those who rule the present age want us out of the way. This is our calling, and it means no longer waiting for things to get worse. This is an apocalypse worth having.
yes. let’s. now. a nother way
The result is a financial system whose most serious risks are borne by the most vulnerable. Foreclosure, eviction and eventual homelessness are part of a tolerable business model. Through international debt, lenders dictate policy to debtor governments with little oversight from the people who will be expected to obey. And, as Aquinas warned, financiers lavish on themselves money from out of thin air. These are moral problems, but without a concept of usury it can be hard to see that. It is hard to imagine a jubilee.
New from @excinit @KernelMag: Can we build a humane alternative to Uber? kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections… #platformcoop #IoO
VC $$ backed platforms like Uber slash customer prices to gain market share. Hard for coops, upstarts to compete. twitter.com/nathanairplane…
.@ucsdCOMM @excinit @KernelMag time to anti-trust the platform monopolies and cooperativize the pieces. #platformcoop #IoO
and/or cooperativize us.. making the pieces irrelevant (pieces from article, ie: money, policy, et al)
are we meaning share as in share things or as in monetary shares.. huge difference. i’m not sure we’re ever sure which one we mean.
schooling the world ness..
platform coop as critique of open source
The result is products like Android, an operating system that employs Linux to carry out perhaps the most powerful engine of corporate surveillance ever invented.
Finally we are beginning to hack corporate ownership design with the same gusto and imagination with which the progenitors of FLOSS hacked intellectual property. We’re coming up with democratic financing, open companies, and diverse, multi-stakeholder co-ops. And we’re also rethinking the rules of the digital commons. The “copyfarleft” licenses of Dmytri Kleinerand the P2P Foundation, for instance, are designed to protect commons from exploitation by extractive companies while allowing their use by democratic and non-commercial enterprises. Some platform co-ops deem it necessary to use full copyright. There is disagreement about intellectual property in the platform co-op community, and I view this as a good thing; robust debate is needed to address the challenge of cultivating the commons while also doing business democratically.
A similar creeping came over me during a very different kind of news cycle—the financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath. ..the people who carried it out, finally, got a pass. …they knew they’d get away with it…….Where did the titans of finance learn to live so confidently by unwritten rules? At a formative age, we ship promising young people off to institutions where they’re supposed to develop the skills and relationships that will give them a start on adult life. Meanwhile, they’re expected to drink. For most of them, it’s illegal, of course; they start at 17 or 18, and the legal drinking age is 21. But they do it anyway, just as many of their parents did, just most of their new friends do, just as the literature and films of the American college experience indicate they must. On many campuses, there is a special police force, which helps ensure that dangerous situations can be dealt with while maintaining a parallel, privileged universe of tolerated illegality.
Those who don’t get to attend these special institutions, meanwhile, learn a very different lesson. When I lived in a rent-stabilized building in Brooklyn, I’d try to befriend my young neighbors—especially the young black men, many of whom had little hope of reaching a gentle enclosure of high-up higher ed. Befriending them could be difficult, though, not least because from time to time they’d disappear for months on end due to arrests and detentions. When they’d come back, I’d learn the crime was usually something along the lines of what I or people I knew had done regularly in college, with no thought that there would be any serious consequences; for us, there weren’t. For them, the lesson was their own expendability.
Alcohol and rape are part of a common continuum of toleration on campuses, constituting a curriculum of privilege that teaches students that they are and will be—so long as they remain in service of elite institutions—above the law and the ordinary moral order. This is how we train our leaders.
july 2016 – scandinavian econs
ust because their countries are at the top of the international charts for equality, that is no reason to be smug.
I know we are so much more.
plan to save twitter: buy it
obviously sharp thinking.. ie: green bay packers, twitter employees, crunching the numbers of shares .. et al
imagine if we go bolder.. and disengage from ownership.. from money ness.. why do we have to own it..? why play the game of measuring all this.. shares.. et al..
Even the US government could step in, recognizing Twitter as a public utility and helping to orchestrate the conversion – just as it has in financing rural electric co-ops since the 1930s, which have become vehicles for broadband expansion today.
yes.. we need it all.. but why waste energy on counting shares.. on inspectors of inspectors.. disengage from money as os..
“anarchism offers a stark alternative. It calls for a politics that doesn’t begin and end with politicians” americamagazine.org/content/all-th…
bulk of anarchist tradition has sought for people to be better org’d in everyday lives..from below/shared..not room for so much greatness
live as if already free.. anarch\ism
rev of everyday life
via Nathan fb share:
A new bit of #platformcoop for Quartz (my first there), focusing on founders. They should have more options. Featuring insights from Paul Allen, a founder of Ancestry.com, as well as Jason Wiener.
before long, the founders discovered that their companies were no longer built around that original idea anymore, or even around the users it could serve. The whole point had become to extract short-term returns for shareholders—and to disguise that fact from users. The great idea, together with the community it attracted, became a mere commodity.
“When people ask what modern invention has led to the most inequality in modern civilization,” Allen told Quartz, “the answer I give is ‘the modern corporation.’”
Balancing the competing, diverging needs of investor-owners and users is a *cumbersome task. Given the choice, many companies may find they’d be **better off making their owners and users one and the same.
always/obsessing measuring transactions/exchanges is a *cumbersome task.. imagine how much **better off we all would be if we disengaged from that..
Okay, so this is my moral argument against the philanthropy of the super-rich, new at America Magazine – The Jesuit Review.
The Case Against Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Philanthropy As We Know It
What goes by the name of philanthropy—literally, the love of people—and what the tax code regards as giving can rival the cynicism of the feudal indulgence business.
When most of us donate from our small excess, we express a concern and entrust the money to those with expertise; when Gates donates, he sets the agenda.
He chose to do this through a limited liability company rather than a foundation, forgoing even the tax code’s spacious definition of philanthropy. The intended targets for this wealth, as for the Gates fortune, are health and public education, although, like the Gateses, they have limited direct experience in either field
If we are to go on tolerating the self-canonization and attempted do-gooding of wealthy donors, we should expect them to actually be engaged in donating—not in the buying of indulgences, not in a vast privatization scheme to replace what could be public decision-making. This is advocacy; advocacy is fine, but we should call it what it is.
If philanthropy means love of others, it must prove itself by entrusting the material of that love to the intended recipients.
To believe in the dignity of other human beings is to honor their capacity to choose.
Giving should mean really giving, or giving back.
Nothing is mine or yours, but it is ours because we are part of the same divine communism.
There is, of course, a very big but.
The catechism goes on, “However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence.” Our flawed and fallen nature makes God’s communism impracticable. Therefore “the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge.”
So, there is a pass for possessions. Property of some kind is needed and useful.
Thomas Aquinas put the matter this way in the Summa Theologica: “Man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need.” We hold property, yes, but we should hold it as if it is not completely ours. We should dispense with it that way, too.
common ing ness
many such gifts are simply acts of either obligation, preference or reciprocity—like tithing at one’s church, or supporting organizations that promote one’s social opinions, or underwriting a public radio station to which one listens. That is a normal part of being a good community member, and it’s praiseworthy, but it is not really giving. It is more a matter of responsibility than philanthropy. Actual philanthropy, the love of people, the stewarding of Providence—these expect a fuller kind of gift.
In either case the gift, once given, is no longer one’s own. It never really was.
Pope Francis has made a point of challenging the common habit of mind in contemporary philanthropy that second-guesses the person in need, that presumes to know better.
an attempt to back away from the presumption that a philanthropist is typically entitled to: the presumption of knowing what other people need better than the people in need do.
Another framework for dispatching such presumptions is democracy. Democracy can be a tool, or a family of tools, for achieving the humility that wealth can otherwise lift beyond reach. We tend to think of democracy as the purview of government, but it can also be a means of real giving. It can be a vehicle of Providence.
Democracy often gets blamed for the bureaucratic outgrowths of government, so we forget its efficiencies;
spreading decision-making processes widely across a large and diverse society is, in principle, a far better way to meet people’s needs than trying to anticipate them through central planning.
redefine decision making via hlb
There has never been less reason for tolerating feudal, unaccountable pretenders to generosity.
One way or another, in order for a gift to be regarded as truly a gift, it should be given in a way that is accountable to its recipients, rather than as an imposition on them.
“Philanthropy is supposed to be private funding for the public good,” he has written, “but increasingly it’s become a playground for private interests.”
a people owned internet – ie: next light