The UN represents many countries and the world bank and its sister bank the imf are un institutions so im not sure about bieng weak (you cany join world bank until you have been robbed by the imf). rosa would speak to people first politics second.Fis Nua (a polityical party im in) made a submission to Rio+ 20 for agenda 21 (see Surveys. Letters, PDF’s & Articles on right hand side http://www.oisintrust.org/bridget1.htm ) im placing as many opinions as possible without bias. Rosa Koire is a liberal and sustainable principles and laws were signed into law in the usa by President George W. Bush Jan 24, 2007 (Executive Order #13423)who is as you say a fascist.
I think both fascists and liberals have a stake in bullshitting people, what do you think
peadar
]]>I have no opinion on Rosa. I only have a problem in seeing global conspiracies for UN domination … The UN is a very weak institution, mostly paralyzed in what it does, subject to great power struggles. One of the very few things that would be good, if it were not ineffectual, would be the Agenda 21, based on voluntary coordination. I doubt a true ‘liberal’ would talk to Tea Party meetings, one of the main opponents of the common good in the U.S.. financed by the plutocracy, and intent on destroying the little that remains of the welfare state for the benefit of the 1%.
]]>Rosa is a democrat and states she is gay in the video, so i doubt fascism is on the agenda.
Participation in agenda 21 and many groups can be (not all) an illusion, the poor get poorer and agree to civic meetings which fulfills the bottom line for developers who dress down for such meetings but suit up the next day (a very basic explanation)
civic in a state is in a corporation, the eu is a corportaion as is america and britain, state corporations or private overlap.
I was hoping for your opinion on rosa who is a liberal.
Regards
Peadar
]]>I haven’t listened to the whole thing, but from the first 15 minutes or so, I totally disagree with Rosa. If it were not a toothless initiative from the UN, I would actually support the agenda, but improve on its participatory aspects. I consider the Tea Party to be a quasi-fascist social force, probably the most dangerous social force in the world, given its nexus in the heart of Empire and the support it gets from the most regressive social forces within the 1%.
]]>ok well this is a large subject and your paper on conservatives (britain) privatizing the commons has been ongoing since the levelers and from the dawn of time, to the determent of common people. Today in parallel, environmentalist groups are removing people from the commons also. The right to roam is removed by legislation as is land ownership as people are pollutants on the earth. Yet the world bank and imf (the united nations) are funding un-environmental projects even on protected areas. So the commons is removed by both left and right, funded by ultimately the same source of banking interests with different marketed philosophies.
hence local agenda 21 which kind of falls between these two familiar models as public autorities or city-based civic movements which are sweeping up the rest of the land. This amidst millions of large landowners who own millions of acres of idle or fallow land worldwide. (no land shortage, only common ownership shortage).
so my question/point which rosa koire is making http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4&feature=player_embedded#! and a typical (could be anywhere worldwide) participatory meeting with everyday peoplewho see land removed from their influence (whether they are any better or worse than the new state owners) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA4GKUUxkhA
People do not want to compete within these philosophies only to work the commons ..which ultimately always (since Sumerian times)eventually involves the exchange of some form of money as commodity until a system of currency is also common, eradicating this by legislation will not work, and capitalism collapsing to move into socialism for some on the left means twenty acres of land, well paid work and housing food and water as a right, without a bureaucrat or landlord telling people whaat to do.
What do you think of Rosa’s explanation , she is an estate appraiser.
Kind Regards
Peadar
]]>The key for me is to strengthen the autonomy of the commoners and the commons economy by all means, and that means a pragmatic attitude that sometimes requires working with or within institutions, sometimes against them. The key is to be guided by your own interests, to have a realistic idea of your strengths and weaknesses, and not be guided by the enemy (though obviously their tactics have to be taken into account). I also think we should be prefigurative, i.e. that our means should reflect our goals. Not any means are justified if their extension would mean ending up with a new type of oppression.
Michel
]]>Public participation in changing environmental goals towards either public autorities or city-based civic movements? (as you explain)is the same as corporate reform since both (private) corporations and the state are now one and the same.
Whilst those who are trying to establish a “commons” this would require either a uprising and land seizure from private landowners or legislation to give common land back to the people. As it is particpating in environmentalist groups which are greenwashed is (according to some ) simply giving consensus to financed groups to give them power to own or rent land at public expense.In effect they run it as a corporation again. Do you agree ?
peadar oceallaigh
]]>I’m not sure I get the relationship between local agenda 21 and corporate reform. My understanding is that the former is about participatory public planning for environmental goals, in line with the UN’s Agenda 21, so it is addressed at either public autorities or city-based civic movements? Corporate reform on the other hand, refers to changes in ownership and governance to obtain altogether different types of market entities, which would no longer be classic for-profit maximiising corportions, but mission-driven, purpose-driven, stakeholder-owned types of entities.
My own p2p point of view proposes to share innovation in a commons of knowledge, code, or design, and to create distributed enterprise around it, which are maker- and/or user-owned, are structured around their mission, and adopt the Peer Production License to keep the value flows within the sphere of the commoners, to create a sustainable ‘circulation of the common’, which would replace the ‘circulation of capital’.
Michel
]]>Thankyou for this, unfortunately we have already had models of corporations in say enron and its opposite in the soviet malaise in their corporations. Both models having difficulty, not just democratically but financially regardless of their structure.(fallacy of perfect competition, and problems of long term fixed capital)
If local agenda 21 is different from above, what new benefits will workers have ? it is a global local planning initiaitve which which effects the points you are addressing in your articles.
I have posted one view on my p to p wall from the usa, what do you think ?
Regards
Peadar
]]>Hi Peadar,
Unfortunately I’m not very aware of Local Agenda 21 ?
Parts 1 to 3 are of course available in the original from Ellerman, that I’m quoting from.
Otherwise, they are available here:
1. http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/rethinking-common-vs-private-property-1-introduction/2012/08/20
]]>