The post The Pandemic as a Catalyst for Institutional Innovation appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The following essay is adapted from a talk given on May 5 at Radical May, a month-long series of events hosted by a consortium of fifty-plus book publishers, including my own publisher, New Society Publishers. My talk — streamed and later posted on YouTube here — builds on two previous blog posts.
As the pandemic continues, it is revealing just how deeply flawed our societal institutions really are. Government programs reward the affluent and punish the poor, and are often ineffectual or politically corrupted. The market/state order is so committed to promoting market growth and using centralized hierarchies to control life, that the resulting systems are fragile, clumsy, and non-resilient. And so on. It is increasingly evident that the problems we face are profoundly systemic.
After dealing with emergencies, therefore, we need to pause and think about mid-term changes in how we can redesign our economy and governance institutions. We need second responders to help emancipate ourselves from archaic, ineffective institutions and infrastructures. We must not revert to old ideological patterns of thought as if the pandemic were simply a temporary break from the normal. “Normal” is not coming back. The new normal has already arrived.
The pandemic is not just about rethinking big systems; it is also about confronting inner realities that need to change. We need to recognize and feel the suffering that is going on around us. We need to understand our interdependencies so that we can build appropriate institutions to rebuild and honor our relationships to each other. Our inner lives and external institutions need to be in better alignment.
Our years of leisurely critique of neoliberal capitalism are over. Now we need to take action to escape from its pathologies and develop new types of governance, provisioning, and social forms. Fortunately, there are many new possibilities for institutional change – in relocalization, agriculture and food, cities, digital networks, social life, and many other areas.
Why this conversation now?
There are several reasons why this conversation is needed now. First, it’s clear that the pandemic has opened up our minds. Now that the failures of existing institutions are so obvious, people are more willing to entertain alternatives that were dismissed only a few months ago. Amazingly, the Financial Times of London has actually endorsed the idea of a Universal Basic Income and wealth redistribution. Congressional Republicans have shown themselves willing to create trillions of dollars for unemployment insurance and social services, without considering it public debt. It’s been the equivalent of “quantitative easing” for people instead of banks.
All of this confirms the saying that there are no neoliberals or libertarians in a pandemic. This is not entirely true, as we’ve seen with armed militia defying state authorities so barber shops can open. But the general point remains: such ignorant defiance of scientific realities is properly seen as anti-social and wacky.
At a deeper level, the pandemic is reacquainting us moderns with something we have denied: that we human beings actually depend on living, biological systems. We human beings are profoundly interdependent on each other despite our presumptions to be autonomous, self-made individuals. A recent essay by ecophilosopher Andreas Weber, “Nourishing Community in Pandemic Times,” puts it nicely:
The corona pandemic makes us understand that the earth is a commons, and that our lives are shared. This insight is not a rational concept, but springs from an emotional need. Individuals accept hardships by restricting their contacts in order to protect community. The understanding that we need to protect others has been able to override economic certainties within days. Humans choose to put reciprocity first. Reciprocity – mutual care – is neither an abstract concept nor an economic policy, but the experience of a sharing relationship and ultimately of keeping the community of life intact.
The reality of mutual aid as a deep human impulse has been showcased recently in a column by George Monbiot in The Guardian and an excellent piece by Gia Tolentino in The New Yorker.
There are two other, more hard-bitten reasons that we need to talk about institutional innovation right now. The pandemic is causing a decline in the market valuation of many types of businesses and assets, and even bankruptcies. This means that it may be easier to acquire land, buildings, and equipment to convert them into commons infrastructure. For this, we will need to develop a whole class of “convert to commons” strategies, which I’ll discuss in a moment.
And finally, this is a time when lots of top-flight talent is eager to innovate and contribute to the common good. During major economic recessions, especially those affecting the technology industries, we have seen remarkable surges of innovation. Talented coders and engineers who otherwise would be designing systems to serve business models and maximize profit-making, can instead design what they really want to design. That’s one reason that we saw such an effusion of tech innovations following the 2002 recession, with blogs, wikis, social media, and other great leaps forward in software design. Similarly, the New Deal under FDR was a time of grave necessity driving breakthrough innovations in government and economics.
In a crisis, it is necessary to innovate, or at least we have “permission” to deviate from standard business models and to reinvent the state. I worry about mutual aid systems withering away as old commercial systems struggle to get back on their feet. I don’t want mutual aid to be merely a transient rescue system for the weaknesses of capitalism and state power. I want it to become a distinct institutional and power sector of its own! To do that we need to self-consciously develop institutional innovations to sustain commoning.
The Commons
I come to this talk as a long-time scholar/activist of the commons. I’ve studied the theory, practice, and social life of the commons for the past 20 years, currently as Director of the Reinventing the Commons Program at the Schumacher Center for a New Economics. I’ve encountered hundreds of commons in my travels and studied them closely. I’ve concluded that they have great promise in addressing the challenges of this moment.
Eight months ago, I published a book called Free, Fair and Alive: The Insurgent Power of the Commons with my German colleague Silke Helfrich. The book distills and synthesizes our twenty years of study of commoning as a social and economic alternative.
I’ve come to conclude that the commons discourse is not only a fantastic way to critique capitalism. It helps us talk about creative, constructive alternatives as well. It points to functional alternatives that meet needs in non-capitalist ways with the active participation and creativity of commoners.
The truth is, we can and must leapfrog over tired debates about socialism versus capitalism. Both of these options rely on centralized, hierarchical, state-based systems, after all. The point of the commons is to open up new vistas for distributed, peer-organized initiative. It’s to honor the countless Internet-friendly options that empower us to take charge of our own governance and provisioning as much as possible.
If we truly want a world of democratic sovereignty and freedom, this option is arguably imperative. After all, electoral politics in modern politics, especially in the US, has been captured and corrupted by capitalism. The nation-state has become so closely allied with capital that it’s virtually impossible to effect transformational change. Political ideology and power have triumphed over serious ideas and debate. Even though economic growth is biophysically impossible over the mid-term, as climate change makes clear, the state continues to prop it up with huge subsidies and legal entitlements.
So unless we confront these tendencies of state power – which the commons helps us do — we will remain entangled in the web of neoliberal capitalism and its structural constraints.
The grim reality is: Covid-19 is the most powerful political actor of our time. It is disrupting countless premises of modern life and forcing us to acknowledge a fork in the road: Shall we try to restore brittle, tightly integrated global markets based on neoliberal fantasies of unlimited economic growth and technological progress? Shall we re-commit to this vision even though this system requires horrific extractivism from nature, racism, inequality, and neocolonialism – and even though small local perturbances like a virus can bring the system down?
Or shall we build a more distributed, resilient, eco-mindful, place-based system that places limits on the use of nature? Shall we build a system that invites widespread and inclusive participation, and nurtures place-making cultures that assure a rough social fairness for everyone?
This is the race we commoners are in – to articulate a positive, progressive vision of the future before reactionaries and investors restore a shabby version of the Old Normal, an unsustainable capitalism that may easily degenerate into authoritarianism or fascism. This direction is already being staked out by Trumpism and its attacks on the rule of law, the rise of the capitalist surveillance state, and armed protests against shelter-at-home policies.
The Old Paradigm is indeed falling apart – but new ones are not yet ready. Since politicians and economists are not going to develop any new paradigms, the burden falls to us to step up and sketch a new societal vision. Beyond expressing a new worldview and set of social practices and norms, we will need to build new types of infrastructures and institutions revolving around the commons. While state power and capital-driven markets will not disappear, it won’t be enough to hoist up a Green New Deal or cling to a timid Democratic Party centrism.
In this essay, I leave aside the complicated macro-policy discussion that we might have. Here, I want to focus on the institutional innovations that could move us in the right directions. In any case, it’s very hard to implement macro-policies without underlying support at the micro-level – the realm of everyday experience and culture. So I’d like to focus on institutions that we can build ourselves, right now, without having to persuade politicians or courts. That, in fact, is the beauty of the commons. We generally don’t need permission to move forward.
Commons-based Institutions
Pre-pandemic, it was very hard to get any traction for expanding the commons, or even talk about it, because the neoliberal vision of “development” was so pervasive and powerful. It was seen as the only credible template for policy, politics and economics. Of course, the moment has changed. The veil has been ripped off of the neoliberal capitalist narrative and it is now quite obvious that we are actually biological creatures whose well-being depends upon a living Earth. We are social creatures who depend on each other.
Fortunately, there are, in fact, many functional models for change that recognize these realities. It’s only a little bit of an exaggeration to say that the problem is more one of our internal consciousness than external institutions. But the effect of the pandemic is to push the “microbial destruction of the Western Cognitive Empire,” as Andreas Weber puts it, referencing a great book, The End of Cognitive Empire, by Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos. Weber’s point is that the Hobbesean vision of society as governed by a social contract and a world composed of dead things misreads the human condition. The conceit that we are ahistorical, decontextualized, isolated individuals – that we are rational, utility-maximizing materialists — is a modernist, libertarian, capitalist fantasy.
The Enlightenment conceit that we can separate humanity from nature, that the individual is utterly separate from the collective, and that the mind and body can be separated, is empirically wrong. It is, frankly, ridiculous. So it’s a bit misleading to say that the coronavirus is destroying the capitalist global economy. It’s more accurate to say that it’s destroying the epistemological edifice upon which the economy stands.
We’re beginning to realize that the world is a pulsating super-organism of living agents. That’s why there is so much talk these days about the “new animism.” People are beginning to realize that the world is actually alive. Gaia really exists!
So rebuilding the world won’t just require new economic policies. It will require an entirely new mindset about a living world and our own aliveness. We need to see that life is really about achieving organic wholeness and integration. It’s about relationality and reciprocity. We need new systems that are take this into account. They must be bottom-up and place-based and embedded in local ecosystems. There must be opportunities for peer governance and local cultures to flourish.
As for “scaling” the commons, hope lies in federating diverse commons so that they can coordinate with each other and work at larger scales without becoming captured by the state or political elites. This requires that we demonstrate the feasibility of new forms of commoning, infrastructure, finance, and commons/public partnerships.
So let me share some of the institutional innovations that I think we need to develop.
Relocalization is vital to a resilient economy. Prime vehicles for relocalization include community supported agriculture, community land trusts, local import-replacement of goods, and local currencies. The basic goal is to decommodify assets and recirculate value.
CSAs are a time-proven finance technique for upfront sharing of the risk between users and producers. We know this as an agricultural finance tool, but in fact it can be used in many other contexts. In my region, many jazz fans subscribe to a series of jazz performances by paying upfront fees, CSA-style. This relieves the financial risks on concert producers and lets performers follow their creativity and not just hype their most well-known, marketable songs.
Community land trusts are also a great way to decommodify land, take land off speculative markets permanently, and mutualize control and benefits of real estate. CLTs help keep land under local control and allow it to be used for socially necessary purposes (e.g., organic local food) rather than for marketable purposes favored by outside investors and markets.
One adaptation of the CLT model developed by the Schumacher Center for a New Economics is “Community Supported Industry,” which applies the CLT model of collective ownership of assets – not just land, but buildings, manufacturing, and retail space – as a way to foster “import replacement.” The idea is to substitute local production for the importing of products through global or national markets.
Another way to foster relocalization is through what I call “Convert-to-Commons Strategies.” This refers to financial or policy mechanisms for converting private, profit-making assets into ones for collective use (preferably nonmarket uses rather than market exchange). Converting business assets into commons helps anchor them in a particular ecological place rather than making them mere commodities subject to the whims of external investors or markets.
A still-emerging Convert-to-Commons approach is finding ways to convert private businesses into collectively owned and managed projects. Activist/scholar Nathan Schneider called these “Exit-to-Community” strategies. These are ways for entrepreneurs to allow communities to acquire their enterprises, avoiding the only two other options generally available to them — selling out to large companies or “going public” (i.e., selling to private investors) through Initial Public Offerings.
In Great Britain, there is a wonderful Assets of Community Value Law, which gives local communities a legal entitlement to be the first to bid on private business that is being sold or in danger of liquidation. This has been a way to convert privately owned pubs, buildings, and civic spaces into community assets.
Relocalization of food production and distribution systems. An important subset of the relocalization question is regionally based agriculture and food distribution systems. The pandemic has shown the precariousness of global and national supply chains, not to mention the atmosphere-destroying carbon emissions that such chains require. We need to develop food supply chains that are more place-based, cheaper in their holistic operations, respectful of ecosystems, and resilient when disruptions do occur.
The activist/academic Jose Luis Vivero Pol has done a great deal of thinking about treating food as a commons and what this would entail. By this, he means that food should not be regarded just as a market commodity that should fetch the highest price, but something that is affordable to everyone, nutritious and not just profitable, and rooted in local economies. This will require that we re-imagine food systems that favor local agriculture, agroecological practices, and more equitable value-chains than we currently have.
An example is the Fresno Commons in California, a community-owned food system in the San Joaquin Valley. Among other mechanisms, the Fresno Commons uses a stakeholder trust to assure that locally grown produce is accessible and affordable. What would otherwise be siphoned away as “profit” is instead mutualized among farmers and field workers, consumers, community businesses, restaurants, and other participants in the food value-chain.
The relocalization of food should also look to innovative data analytics so that farmers themselves can start to build new sorts of cooperative supply systems. If they don’t, the big players who can own and manipulate agricultural data – Monsanto, etc., — will come to control local agriculture. Along the same lines, farmers need to look to open-source designs for agricultural equipment to assure that they can modify and update the software on their tractors, prevent price-gouging and copyright control of data and software, and take charge of their own futures.
This brings me to the idea of cosmo-local production. This is a system in which global design communities freely share and expand “light” knowledge, open-source style, while encouraging people to build the “heavy” stuff — physical manufacturing – locally.
There are already a number of exciting examples of cosmo-local production arising for motor vehicles, furniture, houses, agricultural equipment, electronics, and much else. In agriculture, there are the Farm Hack and Open Source Ecology projects. For housing, there is the WikiHouse model. For furniture, Open Desk. For electronics, Arduino. To help deal with environmental problems, by providing monitoring kits, for example, Public Lab is a citizen-science project that provides open source hardware and software tools.
Like local food chains, the point here is the importance of developing more resilient local production that can be customized to meet local needs. Innovation need not be constrained by the business models that Google and Amazon or other tech giants depend on; the small players can actually make a go of it! Production costs can be cheaper using nonproprietary, non-patented design that rely on open-source communities of innovators. And transport and carbon costs can be minimized.
Imagine what could happen if this approach were applied to the development of a Covid-19 vaccine! Once a new vaccine is presented to the world, we are poised to see a major fight among proprietary drug developers, rich and poor nations, and various international bodies. Some people won’t be able to afford to vaccine, and others will make a fortune off of the pandemic – without actually vaccinating everyone, as needed. That’s why we need to look to organizations like the Drugs for Neglected Disease Initiative, which organizes international partnerships to develop high-quality, low-cost medicines for everyone.
There are two serious problems that will need to be addressed if cosmo-local production, however: finance and law. If there is no intellectual property for cosmo-locally produced products – and thus no property to serve as collateral — lenders will be less inclined to finance new drugs or cosmo-local products. So these problems will need to be solved to help cosmo-local production scale.
Platform cooperatives are another institutional model of commoning. They use Internet platforms as vehicles for cooperative benefit – to empower workers and consumers, to spur creativity, to reduce prices, to assure quality of life. The point of a platform coop is to empower the people who own and run them – workers, consumer, municipalities – rather than investors who extract money from a community in the style of Uber and Airbnb. Platform coops mutualize market surpluses for the benefit of participant-owners.
There are now platform coops for taxi drivers in Austin, Texas (ATX Coop Taxi), for food delivery workers in Berlin (Kolymar-2), for delivery and messaging workers in Barcelona (Mensakas), and for freelance workers in Brussels (SMart), among many others. Recently a new platform for independent bookstores in the US — Bookshop.org – has made some headway against Amazon. While not a coop but rather a B-Corporation, it shares 75% of its profits with bookstores.
One variant of platform cooperatives is known as DIsCO, the Distributed Cooperative Organization, which is a digital platform, sometimes using distributed ledger/blockchain technologies, to build working communities that prioritize mutual support, cooperativism, and care work, while avoiding the exclusionary, techno-determinism of typical networked platforms. DIsCOs and other network platforms need not be market-driven. They can be mutual aid platforms of the sort we’ve seen in response to the pandemic…..or timebanking platforms that enable people to share services through a credit-barter system…or freecycle platforms for giving away and sharing things.
It’s important to build commons-based infrastructure so that any individual commoner doesn’t have to be heroically creative and persistent. Infrastructure – physical, legal, administrative – provides a structure that makes it easier for individual commoners to cooperate and share more readily. It’s a standing, shared resource.
Some examples: Guifi.net, a WiFi system in Catalonia, Spain, has more than 30,000 nodes that functions as a commons. It provides high-quality, affordable service that avoids the loathsome prices and business practices of corporate broadband and WiFi systems. Another interesting infrastructure project is the Omni Commons in Oakland, a collective property for artisans, hackers, social entrepreneurs, and activists. The project consists of nine member collectives who make decisions together, and provides meeting spaces, programming, community-outreach, and more.
Creative Commons licenses are a form of legal infrastructure that enables legal sharing and copying of information and cultural works. Again, this would be far too difficult for any individual to do, but as a collective enterprise, these free public licenses have opened up countless new, cheap and free opportunities to share information, creativity and culture.
Land is an important infrastructure – for regenerative agriculture, affordable housing, and community-based businesses. There is a whole frontier in making land a form of community-owned infrastructure, rather than a mere market or speculative commodity.
Stakeholder trusts like the Alaska Permanent Fund are another rich vehicle for treating public assets as infrastructures for sharing benefits. In his book Capitalism 3.0, Peter Barnes sets forth many examples for using stakeholder trusts to monetize and share the benefits of publicly owned land, forests, water, minerals, and more. The basic idea is to use trusts to manage these assets, which in turn can generate annual dividends for the ordinary citizen.
Finally, we need to explore new types of commons-based finance in the years ahead. There are already many hardy examples to build upon, such as mutual aid societies and insurance, crowd-gifting and crowd-equity pools of money, and – as mentioned earlier – community land trusts, CSA finance models, platform cooperatives, and Convert-to-Commons strategies.
The idea is to avoid the traps of conventional debt and equity, which generally colonize our future behaviors and options, and require enterprises to become growth-driven despite the ecological and community consequences. We need to imagine finance as a diverse array of community-supported and -accountable pools of money that actively facilitate commoning.
The state may be able to play to creative role here, especially city governments, so long as they can get used to the idea of use-rights being as important as market exchange. One way of pursuing this goal is through commons/public partnerships, as Silke Helfrich and I discuss in our book Free, Fair and Alive. This is another, much larger topic – how the state — long allied with capital investors interested in economic growth — can become a constructive, non-intrusive partner with commoners in developing different types of infrastructures, legal regimes, and financing for commons.
* * *
At the dawn of neoliberalism in the 1980s, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once thundered in defense of her economic plans, “There IS no alternative!” We now see that this idea is a ridiculous, bullying claim. The pandemic has revealed that neoliberalism is a fragile monoculture. It is no match for the harsh biological realities of global viruses, the living dynamics of Gaia and climate change, and the governance and inequality problems of the market/state order.
The opportunities ahead are better defined by the acronym TAPAS: “There are PLENTY of alternatives.” But we need to find ways to work together to develop these institutional models and give them some public visibility as real options. We need to communicate these ideas to other commoners and to the general public.
My bet is that the dysfunctionality of current systems and urgent social need will propel great interest in many commons-based models. Still, we have a lot of work to do in consolidating these ideas into a new vision of the future and in building them out. It is very early in the day!
Lead image by Alan L.
The post The Pandemic as a Catalyst for Institutional Innovation appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post Double Edge Theatre: Art & Commoning appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>
About Double Edge Theatre
Double Edge Theatre, an artist-run organization, was founded in Boston in 1982 by Stacy Klein as a feminist ensemble and laboratory of actors’ creative process. The Double Edge Ensemble, led by Artistic Director Klein, along with Co-Artistic Directors Carlos Uriona, Matthew Glassman, Jennifer Johnson, and Producing Executive Director Adam Bright, creates original theatrical performances that are imaginative, imagistic, and visceral. These include indoor performances and site-specific indoor/outdoor traveling spectacles both of which are developed with collaborating visual and music artists through a long-term process and presented on the Farm and on national and international tours. In 1994, Double Edge moved from Boston to a 105-acre former dairy farm in rural Ashfield, MA, to create a sustainable artistic home. Today, the Farm is an International Center of Living Culture and Art Justice, a base for the Ensemble’s extensive international touring and community spectacles, with year-round theatre training, performance exchange, conversations and convenings, greening and sustainable farming initiatives. DE facilities include two performance and training spaces, production facilities, offices, archives, music room, and 5 outdoor performance areas, as well as an animal barn, vegetable gardens, and two additional properties: housing in the center of town for resident artists and DE’s Artist Studio, giving primacy to African American and Latinx artists; and a design house, with design offices, studios, costume shop, and storage for sets, costumes, and props.
The post Double Edge Theatre: Art & Commoning appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post Frustrated with “Business as Usual”? Try Common Wealth appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>Just like you, there are others frustrated by “business-as-usual”. They are frustrated by the “lip service” provided to stakeholders. Like when a company says “employees are our greatest asset” but means the opposite.
By contrast, there are organisations where stakeholders have an actual stake. These include:
- Companies using equity crowdfunding
- Co-operatives, where members are owners and
- Community Co-ownership structures
The best way for these people to meet, share ideas, expertise and discuss issues / challenges is via this first-of-a-kind event: Common Wealth.
Where and When?
Date and time
Thu 27th Feb 2020, 9:00 am – Fri 28th Feb 2020, 5:00 pm
Show more dates for this event
Location
Online: Via Zoom Webinar. In Person: UTS Business School, Dr Chau Chak Wing Building
14-28 Ultimo Rd, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia
Is This For You?
Stakeholders with an actual stake (shared ownership) impacts day-to-day operations, competitive advantage, governance, local economic development and more. The people dealing with these issues will be at Common Wealth.
Aligned investments in “stakeholders with an actual stake” brings down risks and localises returns. But, it also raises new issues at each stage of the business cycle i.e initial capital raising, growth funding and exit. The people raising funds and innovating in this space will be at Common Wealth.
Common Wealth is the place to explore these dynamics with pioneering like-minded people.
Is this the type of crowd that you want to spend time with? If the answer is “yes”, then join in the conversation.
Day 1: Conversations Worth Sharing: Live To Webinar
Day 1 of Common Wealth is an in-person gathering of the Speakers at UTS Centre for Business and Social Innovation.
Speakers present live to each other (with some imbedded media). Their presentation is made via Zoom Webinar, so you can tune in from across the world and participate too.
PLEASE NOTE: The Zoom Webinar Details will be emailed to you separately after ticket purchase. This may take up to 24-48 hours.
PLEASE NOTE: If you want to watch a specific speaker you must choose the right session time.
- Session Pass = 2-hour session = $20 = 4 Speakers
- Whole Day Pass = 8 hours = $60 = 16 Speakers
Who Is Talking on Thursday – 27/2/20
Turning Ideas Into Action: Day 2 – 28/2/2020
A series of strictly limited Round Tables is on Day 2 (28/2/2020) of Common Wealth.
> Equity Crowd Funding: 9:30am – 11:30am (<5 Tickets left)
Hosted by the CFIA (Crowd Funding Institute of Australia) this industry-centric, equity crowdfunding round table will dissect what has worked and what needs to change with the current regime. Most, if not all, the current licensed platforms and regulators will attend.
> Co-operation Between Co-operatives: 12:30pm – 2:30pm (<5 Tickets left)
Hosted by The BCCM (Business Council of Co-ops and Mutuals) this industry discussion will focus on how to Co-operate between the emerging and existing sector for everyone’s benefit.> Sydney Commons Lab: 3:00 – 5:00pm (SOLD OUT)
Hosted by Tirrania Suhood and Dr Jose Ramos this roundtable will centre on the creation of Sydney Commons Lab in 2020. This proposed “civic institution” would promote commons-development, support with policy recommendations and provide a network for commons-oriented initiatives.
Socialising may occur post-event.
Reposted from the original event page. Get tickets here.
Lead image: lighthouse by barnyz
The post Frustrated with “Business as Usual”? Try Common Wealth appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post The P2P Festival in Paris: Unite the Peers appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>All the powers of the old-world have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: liberal States and dictators, banks and FANG, regulators and speculators.
Where is the State that hasn’t attempted to muzzle freedom of communication and information, or to expand surveillance of its own citizens? Which major online service hasn’t monetized their users’ data without their knowledge or closed user accounts without possible recourse? Which banker hasn’t publicly opposed the right of everyone to have personal and absolute ownership of one’s assets through cryptocurrencies?
Two things result from this fact:
1- Peer-to-peer is already acknowledged by all world powers to itself be a power.
2- It is high time that peer-to-peer supporters should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies; that they counter oppressive forces with their diverse and energetic initiatives. To this end, peer-to-peer contributors will assemble in Paris from the 8th to the 12th of January 2020 at the Paris P2P Festival, the first event dedicated to all forms of free interplay between peers: technical, political, cultural, social, and economic.
If we indulge in allusion to a much more famous Manifesto, it is because we believe that p2p technology projects (Bitcoin, blockchains and Web3, distributed Web and Solid, self-sovereign identities, decentralized protocols…) need to be put in perspective.
In 2019, people’s protests and social demonstrations have flooded the streets of every continent: Sudan, Chile, Hong Kong, Catalonia, Algeria, Iran, India, and of course, in France, our Gilets Jaunes. In many cases, governments reacted not only through police or military crackdown but also with censorship of electronic communication: the internet shutdown in Iran, the censorship of social networks in Hong Kong, the prohibition of decentralized identity systems in Spain… Unfortunately, it is now well-established that internet censorship effectively protects the police states that use it.
Therefore, it is no surprise that we’re seeing an increase in infringements of freedom of the press and physical attacks against those who spread information. Antoine Champagne, journalist and co-founder of reflets.info, will come to the festival to talk about the current state of the protection of journalists and whistleblowers.
Along with the cypherpunk tradition, we believe that cryptography and decentralization are essential means to protect individual and collective civil liberties. We hope that talks on the history of the cypherpunk movement and on the history of decentralization will spark conversations about this point of view among the festival participants.
Peer-to-peer technology is a concrete way to arm the resistance against oppressive powers by providing the resilient and confidential communication channels needed to coordinate social movements in hostile environments. Multiple initiatives in this domain will be presented, from the research work of the LIRIS-DRIM team (CNRS) on streaming and Web request anonymization, to Berty‘s decentralized messaging protocol, to talks and workshops on libtorrent and ZeroNet, Ethereum’s network protocol, cjdns, ZKP and identity, and homomorphic encryption.
For the general public less comfortable with the nuts and bolts of p2p cryptography, the documentary Nothing to Hide will give evidence of how mass surveillance impacts everyone and why we have come to accept it so easily. The festival will also host a show on mentalism and social engineering and a serious game which aims to help everyone learn about effective cybersecurity practices.
Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are another branch that stems from the cypherpunk movement. Over the last few years, the importance of having a form of money that is independent from political powers and financial institutions became obvious. At first it was ignored, then it prompted only laughs and sarcasm, and finally, open hostility. Now states and mega-corporations try to compete with their own digital and centralized currencies.
Hence the necessity of articulating and educating the public about what makes decentralized currencies so special! We will tackle this challenge in many ways: a talk on Bitcoin by the founders of Cercle du Coin, a screening of the documentary Protocole with its director in attendance, workshops introducing how to use wallets and cryptocurrencies, presentations and workshops on Libre Money (Monnaie Libre), Dash, Ark…
Since the inception of Ethereum, the scope of the blockchain, this decentralized ledger which stores cryptocurrency transactions has exceeded its monetary applications. Blockchain-based Dapps, DeFi and DAOs refer to new ways to perform peer-to-peer interactions and new approaches for managing common resources in more open and less inegalitarian ways. The audience will be introduced to several programmable blockchains such as Ethereum, Holochain, Tezos, or Aeternity.
DAOs, or Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, are a way to introduce self-governed and transparent rules in place of the arbitrary exercise of centralized power in organizations. We will review the most interesting DAO initiatives such as Aragon, DAOstack and MetaCartel, with a panel, talks and two workshops: co-designing a DAO using DAOcanvas and participating in a decentralized jurisdiction with Kleros. Lessons learned with iExec and Paymium will shed light on decentralized marketplaces and exchanges, another form of decentralized and programmable entities.
But blockchains are not the only way to decentralize the internet. The Solid standard, created by Tim Berners-Lee, aims to re-decentralize the Web, which today lies under the control of a small number of global mega-firms such as Google and Facebook. In France, this standard is actively supported and extended by several teams gathered in the Digital Commons Consortium, present at the festival. They will give talks and workshops covering the Virtual Assembly and Startin’Blox.
Blockchains and distributed Web are closely associated with open source and free software, considered a type of digital commons. More generally, the question of the commons, is defined as a shared resource that is co-governed by its user community according to the community’s rules and norms and is an essential aspect of peer-to-peer networks.
The P2P Foundation, which will give one of the opening talks of the festival, claims the autonomy of the commons with respect to both the private and public sectors. An event within the festival, the Public Domain Day, organized by Wikimedia France and Creative Commons France, will invite open conversations about multiple aspects of intellectual property in the age of the commons: open science and open education, free licences and development aid, and the implications of IA and blockchain on art production. We will also screen a documentary telling the tragic story of Aaron Swartz, the freedom activist behind Creative Commons, and Hacking for the Commons, a brand new documentary about the clash between supporters of intellectual property and those who stand for open and free knowledge. Several members of the Coop des Communs will also participate, such as the Digital Commons Consortium and Open Food Network. Finally, a talk by The Commons Stack will show how blockchain, DAOs and commons can be tightly coupled.
The last major theme of the festival will be shared governance and peer collaboration, as these are critical to all the other topics mentioned above, from blockchain upgrades to management of the commons to the ability of people to act as free citizens and economic agents. We will open the festival with the Citizens’ Convention for the Climate, the first experiment of direct democracy embedded in the institutions of the French republic, as a response to the demand for real democracy expressed the Gilets Jaunes, in the context of climate emergency. The association between climate and collective intelligence will also be discussed during a talk and workshops on the Climate Collage. Tools, practices, and ideas for distributed governance and collective sense-making will be discussed and experienced with Jean-François Noubel, Open Source Politics, the Open Opale collective, and a Warm Data Lab by Matthew Schutte.
In short, peers and commoners everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
In all these movements, they bring to the front, as a leading question in each, the intellectual and physical property question, no matter its degree of development at the time.
Finally, they labour everywhere for a unanimous agreement on initiatives supportive of civil liberties and the construction of the commons.
Peers and commoners disdain the concealment their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the overthrow of the prevalent logic of concentration of power, wealth, and information.
Free Peers of All Countries, Unite!
Lead image: Close view of Hong Kong Lennon Wall by Ceeseven under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Special thanks to Kirstin Maulding.
The post The P2P Festival in Paris: Unite the Peers appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post Who Owns The World? The 5th conference on Platform Cooperativism appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>We are convening one hundred fifty speakers from over thirty countries to meet each other, co-design, and learn about a wide range of topics:
- worker power in the platform economy,
- antitrust,
- misogyny and racism in co-ops,
- ecological sustainability,
- best practices for cooperation including the allocation of startup funding,
- the potential of platform co-ops for data trusts,
- data co-ops,
- new models for distributed governance,
- and data sovereignty.
Highlights include Anand Giridharadas, author of Winners Take All in conversation with Wilma Liebman, former chair of the NLRB.
Policy facilitators
Kirsten Gillibrand, United States Senator; John Martin McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (opposition Finance Minister) of the Labour Party, UK; Dieter Janecek, member of the German Bundestag; New York Assemblymember Ron Kim,
Platform co-op founders
Mensakas, Equal Care Co-op, Up&Go, Salus Coop, Fairbnb, Smart,
Fairmondo, NeedsMap, Stocksy United, Cataki, Cotabo, Resonate, Core Staffing Cooperative,
Scholars
Juliet Schor, Mark Graham, Joseph Blasi, Jack Qiu, Gar Alperovitz, Sandeep Vaheesan, Koray Caliskan, Jessica Gordon-Nemhard,
platform co-op incubators and other organizations providing infrastructure support
Start.coop, Unfound, Sharetribe, IDRC
Tech co-ops
Sassafras, CoLab, Startin’blox, Cooper Systems
Allied community groups
Sixth Street Youth Program, Techo, Peer to Peer Foundation, Young Farmers of America, Data 4 Black Lives, The New School Hip Hop Collective, The Fairwork Foundation
Union and co-op leaders
United States, Japan, Indonesia, France, Sweden, and India.
Coming to us from Zambia, Hip Hop artist PilAto, a.k.a Zambia’s Voice of Inequality, will perform a remake of Childish Gambino’s This Is America. The New School Hip Hop Collective will stage a night of Liberation. Prof. Daniel Blake and his Music for Political Action Fall 2019 course at The New School selected and researched the history of songs that relate to our event. You’ll hear them in the breaks. Stefania de Kenessey and vocalists Lisa Daehlin (soprano) and Waundell Saavedra (bass) will perform their live rendition of the platform co-op anthem!
Lastly, the artist Gabo Camnitzer will stage a children’s strike with Sixth Street Youth Project, and a film screening with Astra Taylor (in person).
Convened by
Trebor Scholz with support from Michael McHugh
Lead image: spinning lights by aaronisnotcool
The post Who Owns The World? The 5th conference on Platform Cooperativism appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post A Bold Agenda for Treating Land as a Commons appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>“Dig deep enough into many of the problems this country faces, and you will soon hit land,” writes Monbiot. “Soaring inequality and exclusion; the massive cost of renting or buying a decent home; repeated financial crises, sparked by housing asset bubbles; the collapse of wildlife and ecosystems; the lack of public amenities – the way land is owned and controlled underlies them all. Yet it scarcely features in political discussions.” (The six report coauthors are Robin Grey, Tom Kenny, Laurie Macfarlane, Anna Powell-Smith, Guy Shrubsole and Beth Stratford.).
The report contains recommendations to the British Labour Party as it develops a policy agenda in preparation for the next general election. Given that much of the world suffers from treating land as a speculative asset, the report could be considered a template for pursuing similar reforms around the world. (Monbiot’s column summarizing the report can be found here.)
For me, the report is quite remarkable: a rigorous, comprehensive set of proposals for how land could be developed, used, and protected as a commons.
There are succinct, powerful sections on making land ownership data more open and available; ways to foster community-led development and ownership of land (such as a “community right to buy”); and codifying a citizen’s “right to roam” on land for civic and cultural purposes. One effective way to curb speculative development and revive farming and forestry is by creating community land trusts and curbing tax privileges and subsidies.
The bald financial realities about land are quite troubling. The report notes that in the UK, “land values have risen 544% since 1995, far outpacing any growth in real incomes.” Housing is simply unaffordable for many people. “Two decades ago, the average working family needed to save for three years to afford a deposit [downpayment] on a home,” the report notes. “Today, it must save for 19 years.”
Much of the blame can go to tax laws and other policies that encourage people to treat homes as financial assets. This fuels fierce speculation in housing that raises prices, greatly benefiting the rich (landowners) and impoverishing renters. Similarly, thanks to speculation and tax subsidies, wealthy landowners consolidate more land while small farmers are forced to give up farming. Fully one-fifth of English farms have folded over the past ten years.
Politicians are generally far too wary to propose solutions to these problems. It would only enrage a key chief constituency, the wealthy, and alienate some in the middle class who aspire to flip homes as a path to wealth. But there are in fact many ways to neutralize the speculative frenzy associated with land and mutualize the acquisition and control of land to make something that can benefit everyone.
Land for the Many recommends a shift in “macroprudential tools” – financial assessments of systemic risk – to prod banks to make fewer loans for real estate and more loans that help productive sectors of the economy. The report also urges restrictions on lending to buyers intending to rent their properties.Other healthy ways to make land more accessible and affordable for all: a progressive property tax on land; a reduction of tax exemptions for landowners; and a cap on permissible rent increases at no more than the rate of wage inflation or the consumer price index, whichever is lower.
Since profit-driven development can have catastrophic long-term effects on ecosystems, wildlife, and future generations, the report calls for the creation of Public Development Corporations. These entities would have the power to purchase and develop land in the public interest.
I especially like the idea of creating a Common Ground Trust, a nonprofit institution to help prospective homebuyers buy homes. As the request of a buyer, the Trust would buy the land underneath a house and hold it in trust for the commons. Since land on average represents 70% of the cost of a house, the Trust’s acquisition of land under housing would greatly reduce the upfront downpayments that buyers must make. “In return,” write Monbiot et al., “the buyers [would] pay a land rent to the Trust.” Home buyers could reap any appreciation in value of their house, but land would effectively be taken off the market and its value would be held in the commons.
“By bringing land into common ownership, land rents can be socialized rather than flowing to private landlords and banks,” the report notes. “Debt-fueled and speculative demand can be reined in without the risk of an uncontrolled or destabilizing fall in values.”
Land for the Many is major achievement. It consolidates the progressive case for land reform and explains in straight-forward language how law and policy must change. Of course, the politics of securing this agenda would be a formidable challenge. But given the grotesque inequalities, ecological harms, declines in farming, and unaffordable housing associated with the current regime of land ownership, this conversation is long-overdue.
Originally posted on bollier.org
Header image: mini malist/Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)
The post A Bold Agenda for Treating Land as a Commons appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post International Conference: “Social Solidarity Economy and the Commons: Contributions to the Deepening of Democracy” appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>Note: the updated submission deadline is June 20, 2019.
Venue: Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal
Date: 6 – 8th November 2019
Organiser: Centre for International Studies (CEI-IUL)
The second international conference “Social Solidarity Economy and the Commons” will be a meeting point for researchers, activists, public officials and social entrepreneurs involved in social and solidarity economy, governance of the commons and new social movements in different parts of the world.
The conference will take place from the 6th to 8th of November 2019 at the Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL) in Lisbon, Portugal. The aim is to co-create an open, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary space for exchange of knowledge and socio-political experiences on new approaches to economic organisation and governance based in solidarity, cooperation and common ownership from across the world.
The conference is organized by the Centre for International Studies (CEI-IUL), with the support of the Department of Political Economy at ISCTE-IUL, the Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (CE3C) in the School of Natural Sciences at the University of Lisbon and the Solidarity Economy Incubator at the Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL) in Brazil.
This document launches the conference’s call for contributions. It also includes information about organization of the conference, the topics addressed, registration details and participation costs. We will post regular updates about its organization on the event’s webpage (https://ssecommons.cei.iscte-iul.pt ), as well as send them by e-mail and through the social media accounts of CEI-IUL (Facebook and Twitter). Any questions regarding organization of the conference or participation can be sent to ssecommons.cei@iscte- iul.pt.
Thematic Fields
The current political, economic and social crises have provoked constructive action on the part of many social movements and progressive governments. Increasing numbers and diversity of initiatives are proactively creating and enacting new socio-economic models and genuinely democratic forms of governance, by mobilizing endogenous practices and resources and promoting collaborations and synergies between civil society and the state. Prominent among these movements, and intersecting with many of them, are Social Solidarity Economy and the Commons.
This international conference “Social Solidarity Economy and the Commons” aims to promote understanding of and dialogue about new, emerging and rediscovered forms of governance and economic organization that offer potential to overcome the challenges that communities, governments and organizations working towards sustainable prosperity currently face. This year’s edition of the conference focuses on conceptual and normative frameworks that support the development of cooperative and sustainable alternatives to neoliberal capitalism and strengthen civil society and the state through participatory democracy.
We invite researchers, activists, public officials and social entrepreneurs to submit proposals for contributions to the conference. Submissions might be based on formal research or on concrete activist, economic or public policy initiatives. Potential topics include, but are not limited to, social movements, processes of knowledge production and diffusion, public policies and alternative strategies of economic governance based on Social Solidarity Economy, and the democratic and collective management of the Commons. In addition to conventional formats such as papers, posters and panel sessions, contributions might take participatory, co-creative and/or artistic formats. We are open to suggestions that can help capture the diversity of actions, experiences and ways of knowing and expression involved in this field.
We aim to promote interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspectives at both theoretical, conceptual and methodological levels. We accordingly invite academics, para-academics, supporters and practitioners to explore these topics from multiple perspectives, including civil society organizations, enterprises and governments. The goal is to work towards a convergence of concepts and strategies among scholars, entrepreneurs, activists and public officials.
In order to promote transdisciplinarity, methodological and empirical diversity and epistemological pluralism, the conference is structured around five thematic fields:
- Social movements, Social Solidarity Economy and the Commons: Initiatives of social solidarity economy and commons-based governance promoted by “new” social movements promoting epistemological, cultural, functional, sexual and gender justice, diversity and inclusion;
- Contributions of Social Solidarity Economy and Commons-based governance to the deepening and widening of Democracy;
- Applications of Social Solidarity Economy and Commons-based governance to urban regeneration and rural development, with a focus on initiatives and programs aimed at revitalizing rural and urban spaces through the promotion of local/regional/bioregional economies and supply chains, along with the commoning of public spaces and productive assets;
- Social Solidarity Economy, the Commons and inclusive social technologies: This thematic field focuses on actions involving social solidarity economy initiatives that combine local/vernacular knowledge with technical/scientific expertise, with the goal of developing replicable and socially transformative products, technologies and forms of governance;
- Applications of Social Solidarity Economy and Commons-based governance to climate change and other sustainability, by promoting transitions to renewable energy, agroecology, sustainable water management and other sustainable socio-technical configurations.
Proposal Submission Guidelines
Proposals should have a maximum length of 800 words (including any reference) and indicate which thematic field/s of the conference they address, along with five keywords. They can be submitted in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish. However, the language of presentation shall be English.
Paper, poster and panel proposals should include:
- Title;
- Thematic field;
- Theoretical or empirical question and literature review;
- Summary of methodology;
- Main argument;
- Summary of conclusions and implications for research, activism, practice or policy-making;
- Main references.
Please submit proposals by email to [email protected] .
Note: the updated submission deadline is June 20, 2019.
After the conference, the organizing committee will launch a call for chapters of an edited, open-access volume of the collection of ebooks of the Centre for International Studies (CEI-IUL). All the authors who presented papers, posters and panels at the conference will be invited to develop their presentations into publishable manuscripts for peer-review.
Other conference outputs may take many possible formats, formal and informal, depending on the nature and scope of submissions and range of dissemination channels available. Participants will be invited to contribute to these, and are welcome to suggest documentation and reporting initiatives within, or as a supplement to, proposal submissions.
Organisers will offer translation (English/Portuguese) during opening, closing and keynote sessions. Translation at other times and in other languages may be available if offered and self-organised by participants.
Important dates
Deadline for proposal submission – May 31st 2019 Notification of contributors – June 30th
Deadline for registration (conference presenters) – October 6th Publication of final program – October 15th
Deadline for registration (non-presenters) – October 20th Beginning of the conference – November 6th
Conference registration
Site: https://ssecommons.cei.iscte-iul.pt/
Professors/lecturers, researchers and other professionals – € 100, 00
Students (Proof of enrolment in a higher education program required)* – € 50, 00
Members of Solidarity Economy initiatives and community development organizations (documentary proof or letter of reference from the organization required) – FREE
*Registration is FREE for students of ISCTE-IUL, FCUL and UFAL
Organizing committee
Ana Margarida Esteves (CEI-IUL) Rogério Roque Amaro (CEI-IUL)
Maria de Fátima Ferreiro (Departamento de Economia Política, ISCTE-IUL) Raquel Silva (CEI-IUL)
Leonardo Leal (CEI-IUL; Universidade Federal de Alagoas– UFAL)
Gil Pessanha Penha-Lopes (Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, FCUL)
The post International Conference: “Social Solidarity Economy and the Commons: Contributions to the Deepening of Democracy” appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post The Art of Maintaining “Good Vibes:” lessons on practices and skills from two egalitarian communities appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>Katarzyna Gajewska: If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. Egalitarian communes create an alternative to capitalist individualist lifestyle and values. The add communal organization of life and sharing living space to the self-managed enterprises that they operate to generate income. Living in such setting means agreeing to be challenged and confronted with the conditioning of modern upbringing. They developed practices that help to create an alternative to the socialization in the capitalist system. Maintaining “good vibes” does not come naturally as we may assume but requires structure, regular practices, and group effort. In a community, a two-person conflict is a community affair because the entire community may be affected.
Creating an alternative economy and organization of production implies a transformation of the relations and ways of inter-personal functioning that have been inculcated into hierarchy culture and the capitalist system. The following analysis will give some insights into intentional ways of creating a new culture that can serve as an inspiration for the organizations that want to create an alternative to the mainstream. We can learn from these advanced forms of cooperation for other co-operative projects.
I interviewed dozens of members of two egalitarian communities (also called communes), rural Acorn community in Virginia, US (consisting of 30 adults and one child at the time of research in 2014) and suburban Kummune Niederkaufungen near to Kassel in Germany (consisting of 60 adults and 20 teens and children in 2016). Egalitarian communities constitute a more advanced version of experimenting with alternative economy than ecovillages. They share labor, land, and resources according to one’s needs and everyone contributes in a chosen way to reproductive and income-producing endeavors. They apply the principle of consensus to their decision-making.
How the communes maintain good vibes?
In both communities, there are weekly meetings to discuss and make decisions. They are also an occasion to get updates on the lives of individual members and communal affairs. In Niederkaufungen, there is a general meeting once a week and working groups that discuss specific topics meet according to their own schedules. In Acorn, another weekly meeting is scheduled to discuss a proposed topic with a moderator. This may serve as a preparation for decision-making during weekly General Assembly.
In both communes, all kinds of conflicts, all kinds, including romantic breaks-ups are seen as a communal affair. There are several people who volunteer to be mediators in such cases and help the conflicted to communicate. One of Niederkaufungen’s enterprises is a training center for non-violent communication (it is a method and theory developed by Marshall B. Rosenberg1). Therefore, the community has experienced trainers and many of the members are familiar with the method. This, however, does not mean that there are no conflicts. Some people have not talked to each other for years as a consequence of a conflict. Some resentments are held for a long time, which is often caused by not knowing and understanding the other. They may avoid the resented person and gossip. Some people feel frustrated because decisions and changes in the life of the commune take such a long time. Discussions in groups to understand different standpoints on an issue causing a conflict also may take time.
Living in a commune is not easier than in the mainstream society – it is challenging in a different way. It involves a lot of talking: in assembly, in smaller groups, informal exchanges. Gossiping is a form of dealing with frustration. Talking seems to be a crucial factor in maintaining togetherness and self-insight.
Both communities recognize that being closer and more inter-dependent than it is usually the case in the relationships outside one’s family is a challenge. The communes have developed their own ways of
maintaining community spirit and good relations among communards.
Acorn:
- regular personal updates, so called “clearness process” : “This measure consists of weekly check-ins – short sharing of how one feels during a weekly meeting, presenting one’s wellbeing and plans towards the community once a year, and obligation to talk with each community member in a one-on-one conversation at least once a year. The latter one is reported during the weekly community meeting. For example, someone shared that the obligatory conversation made her realize that she had a lot in common with someone she hardly talked to all the year.” (Gajewska 11 October 2016)
- principle of no “withholds”: “The principle of “no withholds” bases on the premise that long-term frustration may result in explosion or bad atmosphere. Members schedule an appointment to share their frustration. The addressee of this revealing is supposed to abstain from responding during certain time and integrate the feedback.” (Gajewska 11 October 2016).
Niederkaufungen:
- therapy groups: Some members choose to meet regularly in meetings, for example, men’s group, to provide each other support and more insight. There is no leader or expert. Meeting and exchanging in the group aims at therapeutic effect.
- individual therapy: Some of my interviewees participated in individual psychotherapy sessions during their stay in the community. One of them reduced working hours to allow time for processing the insights from the therapy. They considered it to be helpful to change their functioning in the group. One of my interviewees observed that thanks to individual intense therapy, which was made possible by lowering work load for this period, this person started to perceive other members differently, with less projections and blaming others.
- practicing non-violent communication: the members that I interviewed seemed to have internalized the principles of Rosenberg’s method. They process their emotions and ask what is behind a conflict. Also other members may step in to talk about a disagreement and help conflicted parties understand their needs better.
- rules regarding the use of mobile phones and similar devices: they are allowed only in private spaces and they shall not be used in the common area such as communal dining room.
Cultivating communal skills in the mainstream world
Creating an alternative reality to the one imposed by neoliberal agenda requires capacity to organize, be part of a group, commitment to collective efforts. These skills are a base for cooperative enterprises, consumer self-organizing, and other forms of collective autonomy. Many of my interviewees mentioned that work is different in their communes because they can show up the way they are. There is less pretending. I am convinced that culture can be shaped despite our conditionings. It is an interesting human adventure to look into the mystery of inter-personal relations. Many of the communards that I interviewed revealed intentional personal and group work on this very aspect. They undertook practical steps to make it work. So can we.
Short description of Acorn and Niederkaufungen
Acorn community is a farm based, anarchist, secular, egalitarian community of around 32 folks, based in Mineral, Virginia. It was founded in 1993 by former members of neighboring Twin Oaks community. To make their living, they operate an heirloom and organic seed business, Southern Exposure Seed Exchange (“SESE”), which tests seeds in the local climate and provides customers with advice on growing their own plants and reproducing seeds. They work with about 60 farms that produce seed for them, which they test for good germination, weigh out, and sell or freeze for future use. The seeds are chosen according to their reproduction potential so that gardeners can reproduce seeds from the harvest instead of buying them every season. The enterprise conducts and publishes research on the varieties so that customers take less risks when planting them. Acorn is affiliated to the Federation of Egalitarian Communities, a US network of intentional communities that commit to holding in common their land, labor, resources, and income among community members.
Kommune Niederkaufungen consists of about 60 adults and 20 teenagers and children. It was founded in the late 1986, after three years of preparing and campaigning. Meanwhile other income-sharing communities have been established in the region of Kassel. They are a left wing group, with positions that range from radical and social feminist, through green/ecologist standpoints, over Marxism and communism, to syndicalist and anarchist positions. Many communards are active in political groups and campaigns in Kaufungen and Kassel. Nowadays, they are economically autonomous. Their enterprises include elderly daycare, child daycare, training in non-violent communication, a seminar center, catering and food production, carpentry. Some members are salaried outside of the commune. To become a member, one needs to give all the property and savings to the commune. However, it is possible to negotiate a sum of money in case of exit from the commune to start a new life. The commune is a member of German network Kommuja. To read more about the commune, see: https://www.kommune-niederkaufungen.de/english-informations/
Authors’s articles on both communities (you can find references included in this article)
- Gajewska, Katarzyna (Autumn 2018): Practices and skills for self-governed communal life and work: examples of one US and one German egalitarian community. Journal of Co-operative Studies 51(2): 67-72.
- Gajewska, Katarzyna (25 June 2018). How to Start and Maintain a Micro-Revolutionary Project. Grassroots Economic Organizing (GEO). http://geo.coop/story/how-start-and-maintain-micro-revolutionary-project
- Gajewska, Katarzyna (2017): Kommune Niederkaufungen – jak się żyje w 60-osobowej wspólnocie. [Kommune Niederkaufungen – on living in a 60-person commune], quarterly Nowy Obywatel [New Citizen].
- Gajewska, Katarzyna (9 October 2017): Raising children in egalitarian communities: An inspiration. Post-Growth Institute Blog http://postgrowth.org/raising-children-in-egalitarian-communities-an-inspiration/
- Gajewska, Katarzyna (11 October 2016): Egalitarian alternative to the US mainstream: study of Acorn community in Virginia, US. PostGrowth.org http://postgrowth.org/egalitarian-alternative-acorn-community/ , first published in Bronislaw Magazine
- Gajewska, Katarzyna (21 July 2016): An intentional egalitarian community as a small-scale implementation of Post-Capitalism. P2P Foundation Blog https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/an-intentional-egalitarian-community-as-a-small-scale-implementation-of-postcapitalist-peer-production-model-of-economy-part-i-work-as-a-spontanous-voluntary-contribution/2014/12/27
- Gajewska, Katarzyna (10 January 2016): Case study: Creating use value while making a living in egalitarian communities. P2P Foundation Blog, http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/an-intentional-egalitarian-community-as-a-small-scale-implementation-of-postcapitalist-peer-production-model-of-economy-part-ii-creating-use-value-while-making-a-living/2016/01/10
- Gajewska, Katarzyna (27 December 2014): An intentional egalitarian community as a small-scale implementation of postcapitalist, peer production model of economy. Part I : Work as a spontanous, voluntary contribution. P2P Foundation Blog, http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/an-intentional-egalitarian-community-as-a-small-scale-implementation-of-postcapitalist-peer-production-model-of-economy-part-i-work-as-a-spontanous-voluntary-contribution/2014/12/27
This is a shortened and modified version of the article : Katarzyna Gajewska (Autumn 2018): Practices and skills for self-governed communal life and work: examples of one US and one German egalitarian community. Journal of Co-operative Studies 51(2): 67-72.
This article contains excerpts of already published texts in Creative Commons and is under Creative Commons licence.
Katarzyna Gajewska, PhD, is an independent scholar, workshop leader, and transformational guide. She has published on alternative economy, universal basic income, non-digital peer production, collective autonomy, food and health. You can contact her at: k.gajewska_comm(AT)zoho.com.
List of publications here
Facebook: Katarzyna Gajewska – Independent Scholar
1 Marshall B. Rosenberg was the founder and director of educational services for The Center for Nonviolent Communication.
Header image: “The Poop Deck is a humanure toilet with two seats. The sign adjusts that way in case you want company while you do your business.” – The picture was taken in Twin Oaks egalitarian community. Picture and picture description by Raven Cotyledon from Commune Life (creative commons)
The post The Art of Maintaining “Good Vibes:” lessons on practices and skills from two egalitarian communities appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post Open-source licensing war: Commons Clause appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>Written Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols for Linux and Open Source, originally posted on ZDNet on August 28, 2018
Most people wouldn’t know an open-source license from their driver’s license. For those who work with open-source software, it’s a different story. Open-source license fights can be vicious, cost serious coin, and determine the fate of multi-million dollar companies. So, when Redis Labs added a new license clause, Commons Clause, on top of Redis, an open-source, BSD licensed, in-memory data structure store, all hell broke loose.
Why? First, you need to understand that while you may never have heard of Redis, it’s a big deal. It enables real-time applications such as advertising, gaming financial services, and IoT to work at speed. That’s because it can deliver sub-millisecond response times to millions of requests per second.
But Redis Labs has been unsuccessful in monetizing Redis, or at least not as successful as they’d like. Their executives were discovering, like the far more well-known Docker, that having a great open-source technology did not mean you’d be making millions. Redis’ solution was to embrace Commons Clause.
This license forbids you from selling the software. It also states you may not host or offer consulting or support services as “a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the software”.
If that doesn’t sound like open-source software to you, you have lots of company.
Simon Phipps, president of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), snapped on Twitter: “Redis just went proprietary, which sucks. No, this is not just ‘a limitation concerning fair use,’ it is an abrogation of software freedom.”
In an email, Phipps added, “Adding a significant clause to an existing license that has been approved by OSI instantly renders it non-approved, and the text of the so-called ‘Commons Clause,’ which actually fences off the commons, is clearly intended to violate clause 1 of the Open Source Definition and probably also violates clauses 3, 5 and 6. As such adding this clause to a license would be a major abrogation of software freedom removing essential rights from any affected open-source community.”
Software programmer Drew DeVault made his stance clear from his opening words: “Commons Clause will destroy open source.” Commons Clause, he continued, “presents one of the greatest existential threats to open source I’ve ever seen. It preys on a vulnerability open-source maintainers all suffer from, and one I can strongly relate to. It sucks to not be able to make money from your open-source work. It really sucks when companies are using your work to make money for themselves. If a solution presents itself, it’s tempting to jump at it. But the Commons Clause doesn’t present a solution for supporting open-source software. It presents a framework for turning open-source software into proprietary software.”
Bradley M Kuhn, president of the Software Freedom Conservancy and author of the Affero General Public License, blogged, “This proprietary software license, which is not open source and does not respect the four freedoms of free software, seeks to hide a power imbalance ironically behind the guise ‘open source sustainability.’ Their argument, once you look past their assertion that the only way to save open source is to not do open source, is quite plain: If we can’t make money as quickly and as easily as we’d like with this software, then we have to make sure no one else can as well.”
Andrew ‘Andy’ Updegrove, a founding partner of Gesmer Updegrove, a top technology law firm, and open-source legal expert, found it no surprise that many open-source supporters hate Commons Clause. He rejects the conspiracy theory, “that the Commons Clause will be some sort of virus that will deprive innocent developers of the ability to make a living, and will persuade businesses owners to avoid buying or using code that has any commons clause in it.”
Updegrove believes this is because Heather Meeker, a partner at O’Melveny law firm who drafted it, “is a respected attorney and long-term participant in open-source legal circles, so IMHO the conspiracy theory can be ignored. Note also that Kevin Wang [founder of FOSSA]and Heather have both offered the clause as text to initiate a discussion, and not something to be wholesale adopted as it stands.”
That didn’t stop Redis Labs, which is applying Commons Clause on top of the Apache license, to cover five new Redis modules. Redis is doing this, said its co-founder and CTO Yiftach Shoolman in an email, “for two reasons — to limit the monetization of these advanced capabilities by cloud service providers like AWS and to help enterprise developers whose companies do not work with AGPL licenses.”
On the Redis Labs site, the company now explains in more detail that cloud providers are taking advantage of open-source companies by repackaging their programs into competitive, proprietary-service offerings. These providers contribute very little — if anything — back to those open-source projects. Instead, they use their monopolistic nature to derive hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues from them.
Redis Labs contends that “most cloud providers offer Redis as a managed service over their infrastructure and enjoy huge income from software that was not developed by them. Redis Labs is leading and financing the development of open source Redis and deserves to enjoy the fruits of these efforts.” Shoolman insisted that “Redis is open source and will remain under a BSD license.”
Salvatore Sanfilippo, Redis’ creator, added the change just “means that basically certain enterprise add-ons, instead of being completely closed source as they could be, will be available with a more permissive license,” Commons Clauses with Apache.
Software Freedom Conservancy executive director Karen Sandler isn’t so sure. Sandler emailed that Commons Clause “highlights the fundamental problems connected to the wide adoption of non-copyleft licenses, but I think it doesn’t really solve the problem that it seeks to solve. What we really need is strong copyleft licenses where the copyrights are held diversely by individuals and functional charities to make sure that software remains free and that societally we have the rights we need to have confidence in our software in the long run.”
In an email, Wang defended Commons Clause as “mostly used to temporarily transition enterprise offering counterparts of open-source software projects to source-available”. Wang continued: “Open-source software projects are mainly funded by a proprietary offering/service counterparts. Anything to help this layer monetize is good — the fate of the OSS is directly funded by it.
“The world has changed a lot and the open-source software/cloud ecosystem has a lot too,” Wang added. “The Open Source Definition is an immensely [valuable] set of ideals, but maybe it’s outdated to the modern state of the world. … Licensing follows intent, and I certainly don’t think the clause inspires people to close their source. But sometimes people need to change their license.”
Be that as it may, Updegrove wrote Commons Clause is “simple in concept: basically, it gives a developer the right to make sure no one can make money out of her code — whether by selling, hosting, or supporting it — unless the Commons Clause code is a minor part of a larger software product”.
“In one way, that’s in the spirit of a copyleft license (i.e., a prohibition on commercial interests taking advantage of a programmer’s willingness to make her code available for free), but it also violates the ‘Four Freedoms’ of free and open-source software as well as the Open Source Definition by placing restrictions on reuse, among other issues.”
But, “adding the Commons Clause to an open-source license makes it no longer an open-source license,” Updegrove added. And, were the Commons Clause to catch on, “it could give rise to an unwelcome trend”.
“The wide proliferation of licenses in the early days of open source was unhelpful and a cause of ongoing confusion and complexity, since not all licenses were compatible with other licenses. That means that before any piece of open-source code can be added to a code base, it’s necessary to determine whether its license is compatible with the licenses of all other software in the same product. That’s a big and ongoing headache.”
That’s a big reason, Updegrove wrote, why “Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond created the Open Source Definition and the Open Source Initiative so that there would be a central reference point and authority to determine what was and was not an ‘Open Source License’. That definition and process has held now for 20 years — an eternity, in open-source history.”
Therefore, Updegrove sees Commons Clause as a step backward from a process point of view. Worse, “it would be a very disturbing development if the release of the Commons Clause inspired more people to come up with their own license ‘extensions’, especially if they are also not compliant with the Open Software Definition and the Four Freedoms.”
The result? Companies and programmers veering away from using any Commons Clause licensed software. That was not its creators’ intent, but it’s a realistic concern.
Updegrove adds, “Speaking as a lawyer, the fact that someone can still charge for a product that includes Commons Clause software so long as the value does not ‘derive[s], entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the software’ is certain to invite disputes. The most obvious is what does ‘substantially’ [mean]? There is no bright-line for guidance.”
Georg Greve, co-founder and president at Vereign, a blockchain-secured communication company and founder of Free Software Foundation Europe, also worried, “Overall it seems purposefully vague & misleading, probably overreaching and terribly one-sided to establish Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt for any professional use of software licensed under it while making it terribly easy to ‘accidentally’ incorporate such components.”
Still, Updegrove thinks Commons Clause may be “a useful addition to the licensing menu, but not one that will be appropriate for use in all situations. … Developers should be clear in advance what their goals are when they’re put their fingers to their keys. Commons Clause-licensed software is not likely to get the same amount of reuse as might otherwise be the case.”
The post Open-source licensing war: Commons Clause appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>The post Right To Own: A Policy Framework to Catalyze Worker Ownership Transitions appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>Executive Summary
Age-old questions of ownership, control, and distribution in our economy remain as important as ever. In fostering the creation of communities and workplaces driven by values of solidarity, cooperation, and justice, workplace democracy and worker ownership are crucial, powerful tools, and they can and should play an important role in the next economic system.
There is already a long-standing policy agenda for worker ownership that has become a powerful and effective consensus in many countries. This agenda is behind the Employee Share Ownership Plan in the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which made available additional tax privileges throughout the next decade and allowed Ronald Reagan to join John Lewis and Karl Marx on the list of those who made public statements in favor of worker ownership.1 It is also the agenda behind both the recent tax incentives for employee ownership trusts passed in the United Kingdom,2 and United States Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s recently passed 2018 legislation extending Small Business Administration assistance for worker cooperatives and ESOPs.3
These have produced real improvements for countless workers, but they can only take us so far. We need a policy agenda for worker ownership compatible with the systemic change we know we need on a global scale. If we want to transition to an economy that does not drive catastrophic climate change; dispossession and violence against people of color and the developing world; and gross inequalities of power, income, and wealth, then we need to develop a vision of worker ownership that can contribute to that transition, rather than one that aligns the interests of worker-owners with the shareholders of extractive private corporations that are the problem in our society.4
The initial section of this paper is a review of relevant policy models, including Italy’s decades-old Marcora framework, Washington, D.C.’s Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, and the legislative history of existing worker ownership models in the United Kingdom and United States. These will lead us on to a discussion about the principles that should underlie a progressive policy agenda for worker ownership.
The second section of this paper—the policy proposal itself—describes a set of institutions and laws that could enable a substantial share of the economy to transition to democratic worker ownership with “sheltering institutions” that provide a countervailing force against the rigid demands of the market. We aim to offer a path forward for worker ownership for those of us who believe that system change is necessary.
We provide a generalized technical model of a pluralistic “institutional ecosystem” to surround worker-owned businesses; a legal framework that provides an effective right of first refusal to workers to purchase sites and companies that are being closed or sold; and a discussion of the limits of our proposal and an outline of an interlocking mechanism that could fill the most significant of these gaps—especially capital-intensive, publicly traded, and large employers—with an “inclusive ownership fund” that would gradually increase democratic ownership over these key institutions in our economy.
The ultimate goal is twofold: to massively broaden the pool of candidate companies and sites that can be legally transitioned to democratic worker ownership if given the resources (through the right of first refusal) and to substantially deepen the financial and technical resources available to workers at companies and sites within that “candidate pool” to transition their workplace to democratic ownership.
This paper offers tools to activists and lawmakers to promote economic transformation in their own jurisdictions. The appendices offer additional suggestions and implementation details to expand our general model in the United States, where we are based, and in the United Kingdom, where similar ideas are advocated by Labour Party policy as the “right to own”—a term that we also use to describe the full proposal in this paper.5
With these policies in place, societies will be far better positioned to prevent mass layoffs as a result of the so-called “silver tsunami” of retiring baby-boomer owners of small-to-medium business enterprises, many of whom currently close their companies at retirement or sell them to extractive vulture capitalists who asset-strip the firms with little protection for workers. In many localities, extensive legal, financial and technical supports for worker ownership is the best option for maintaining community stability in the face of an inevitable and significant economic transition—one that can be reprogrammed to serve the interests of the many in order to prevent it being exploited by the few.
What the public thinks
A poll commissioned by The Democracy Collaborative with YouGov Blue found overwhelming support for a policy that would give workers the right of first refusal when their workplaces were slated for sale or closure, with 69% of respondents in support and only 10% opposed:
Unlike many proposals that aim at a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, our polling shows that a workers’ right of first refusal is wildly popular across party lines, with 66% of Republicans in support.
Our polling also tested support for a workers’ right of first refusal against support for the existing federal tax subsidies established to reward owners who transfer their businesses to employees by allowing them to defer taxation on such sales. This “1042 Rollover” is very familiar to the employee ownership sector, of course, but not widely known outside of it. Due to its origins under the Reagan administration, this subsidy to owners is often held up as an example of the bipartisan appeal of employee ownership. To our surprise, we found a workers’ right of first refusal outpolls the 1042 rollover subsidy by a 14-point margin, with only 55% of respondents in support of tax subsidies for owners who sell to their employees. Moreover, only 49% of surveyed Republicans supported the 1042 rollover, compared to the 66% of Republican respondents who expressed support for a right of first refusal.
Our polling also found that support for a workers’ right of first refusal increases and solidifies with age—while a solid 59% of 18-29 year old respondents are in support, 15% responded they were not sure. But 81% of respondents over 65 were in support, with only 4% unsure.
Finally, while support was strong across racial and ethnic groups, we found that particularly strong support with respondents identifying as Hispanic, with 78% in favor of a workers’ right of first refusal.
Download and share
originally posted on The Next System
- 1. Marx, Karl, 1894. Capital, Vol. 3. Web: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/ works/1894-c3/ch27.htm; Reagan, Ronald, 1987. ‘President Reagan’s Speech on Project Economic Justice’, Transcript: http://www.cesj.org/about-cesj-in-brief/. history-accomplishments/pres-reagans-speech-on-project-economic-justice/.
- 2. Michael, Christopher, 2017. ‘The Employee Ownership Trust: An ESOP Alternative’ in Probate and Property 31(1): p. 46
- 3. US Federation of Worker Cooperatives, 2018. ‘The US Federation of Worker Cooperatives Celebrates the Passing of the First National Legislation That Focuses on Worker Cooperatives’. Web: https://usworker.coop/blog/usfwc-main-street-employee-ownership-act/
- 4. Alperovitz, Gar, 2016. ‘A response to Sam Gindin’, Web: http://www.garalperovitz. com/2016/03/response-sam-gindin/
- 5. The Labour Party, 2017. For The Many, Not The Few. Web: http://labour.org.uk/manifesto
The post Right To Own: A Policy Framework to Catalyze Worker Ownership Transitions appeared first on P2P Foundation.
]]>