Comments on: Utopians are ruining everything

By: Øyvind Holmstad

Øyvind Holmstad — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:54:49 +0000

Vera, Bauwens continues with a great article about William Morris: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-3d-printing-is-rooted-in-the-history-of-the-progressive-and-democratic-arts-and-crafts-movement/2015/02/20

I didn’t know about Morris before, but to me he seems like an early Alexander. They both obviously have the same vision for a living world.

By: Øyvind Holmstad

Øyvind Holmstad — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 06:02:35 +0000

– In defense of pragmatic ‘real utopias’: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/in-defense-of-pragmatic-real-utopias/2015/02/19

(a response by Michel Bauwens)

By: vera

vera — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:27:32 +0000

Thank you for your thoughts. I know my take is somewhat different. For example, Thomas Moore, who wrote Utopia, perhaps tongue in cheek, was no utopian, but a nasty customer who delighted in torturing religious dissidents in his own private torture chamber and in sending them to the pyre. He was beheaded because he stubbornly refused to recognize the legitimacy of Henry’s second marriage. If Thomas had tried to implement his Utopia, it would have been another blood bath.

William Morris was quite different. He not only spun utopian ideas in a book, he — as Øyvind mentions — embodied them in his own craftsmanship. He is a spiritual giant and an exception. (So were, in their own way, the Shakers.)

The reason I am juxtaposing these unlikely so-called “realists” is because they all promised a very very bright tomorrow to people, got their support, and then proceeded to devastate them. Primarily because they carried dystopia, not utopia, inside them. Just like Thomas Moore.

Øyvind, I don’t know much about Gehry, but he seems to be all about ego. Recently someone criticized him, and he publicly shot them a finger. The pics are all over the internet. These modern architects are famous for being so caught up in their own creations that they get ticked off if someone complains the roof leaks and needs to be rebuilt. Ego before livingness!

By: Øyvind Holmstad

Øyvind Holmstad — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:23:39 +0000

Please too see Vera’s former essay; “Emergent versus imposed design”: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/emergent-versus-imposed-design/2015/02/12

By: Øyvind Holmstad

Øyvind Holmstad — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:53:38 +0000

Yes, you are right about all these people!

But for Frank Gehry I believe it’s different. I think he’s honestly wanting to make the world a better place with his buildings. And I’m sure he’s a very nice man. It’s just that his design is imposed. And as architecture is the physical incarnation of the values of society, he’s promoting an imposed utopianism with the best of intentions.

You cannot see any patterns or any of the 15 transformations in Gehry’s buildings. Emerging design is full of both. So an emerging utopianism must value the 15 transformations, patterns, agile design, biophilia, self-organization and so on, to become the physical incarnation of true utopianism.

Many believe that architecture is separate of society, just an expression of art. It’s not. Architecture is the physical incarnation of society’s values.

By: Orsan

Orsan — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:31:20 +0000

actually opposite: realist and cold bloded ones like Churchil, Teatcher, Hitler, Stalin, Bush(es), Clintons, Obama, Putin,… also large businessman like Ford, Rhodes, Rockefellar,…

By: Orsan

Orsan — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:25:59 +0000

“Most of the people who’ve brought ruin to the modern world have been utopians, from Lenin to Mussolini to Pol Pot, from communists to neo-liberals, from early modern architects to Brutalists to more recent ego-excesses of the various Frank Gehrys.” Don’t know Vera’s work, but this catagorization is extremely problematique. On the one hand Lenin, is a very realist politician, self-believed leader, impossible to see him as a utopian, forger about having an utiopia for himself he fought against utopians. Here is the real utopian and his rethreat before Lenin:http://monoskop.org/images/4/48/Bogdanov_Alexander_Red_Star_The_First_Bolshevik_Utopia.pdf The others like Mussolini, Hiltler, PolPot, Stalin, all are ‘distopians’, barbaric in nature, even pycophatic, no relation to utopia at all, exploiting emotinal politics.

By: Øyvind Holmstad

Øyvind Holmstad — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:14:38 +0000

Isn’t the article about the difference between imposed vs. emerging dreams? But I agree the word Imposed should have been added to the title, making the title “Imposed utopians are ruining everything”. This is obviously a bad thing. While emerging utopians are a good thing.

Please see the discussion thread of the original essay, which is about emergent vs. imposed design.

So personally the article has stimulated me to differ between these two utopian schemes, emergent vs. imposed.

I’m sure Vera will become more specific about this in future essays. Please check her blog. She’s doing extremely important things.

By: Michel Bauwens

Michel Bauwens — Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:26:28 +0000

In reply to Alain Ambrosi. Dear Alain, the p2p blog has always been pluralistic and is open to contributions with people that we do not necessarily agree with. As you can guess, I strongly disagree with this one, but it hopefully can also stimulating thinking.

By: Alain Ambrosi

Alain Ambrosi — Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:35:01 +0000

I am surprised to read this on a blog which promotes the commons and commoning . Thomas More who forged the term ” Utopia” witnessed in his own life the first movement of enclosures in England (XVI century). His book Utopia is an explicit criticism of the Tudor aristocracy and private property and it promotes use value over exchange . He was beheaded for that. Before he wrote this book he was not a “dreamer” but a jurist, a philosopher and a man of state. William Morris who was inspired by More several centuries later was an artist and businessman, not simply a dreamer but a doer. His book “News from Nowhere” is more a criticism of his time than an imposition of “top down design”. David Bollier and others who define the commons today as “a pragmatic utopia” are direct descendants of the early utopians. I am surpised to see that the only utopians cited here are Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin and Mussolini (why not throw Hitler in with them too?) – arguably very pragmatic dictators rather than the founders of utopianism.