Revolutions were seizures of power by popular forces aiming to transform the very nature of the political, social, and economic system in the country in which the revolution took place, usually according to some visionary dream of a just society
In a Dematerialized Economy, Sharing is Better than Owning - P2P Foundation - 0 views
Sustainable Economies Law Center - 0 views
25More
A Practical Utopian's Guide to the Coming Collapse | David Graeber | The Baffler - 0 views
-
historian Immanuel Wallerstein. He argues that for the last quarter millennium or so, revolutions have consisted above all of planetwide transformations of political common sense.
- ...22 more annotations...
-
In no case did the revolutionaries succeed in taking power, but afterward, institutions inspired by the French Revolution—notably, universal systems of primary education—were put in place pretty much everywhere.
-
The last in the series was the world revolution of 1968—which, much like 1848, broke out almost everywhere, from China to Mexico, seized power nowhere, but nonetheless changed everything.
-
ideas that had been considered veritably lunatic fringe quickly become the accepted currency of debate
-
in most cases, the rebels didn’t even try to take over the apparatus of state; they saw that apparatus as itself the problem.
-
It’s fashionable nowadays to view the social movements of the late sixties as an embarrassing failure.
-
The ironies are endless. While the new free market ideology has framed itself above all as a rejection of bureaucracy, it has, in fact, been responsible for the first administrative system that has operated on a planetary scale, with its endless layering of public and private bureaucracies: the IMF, World Bank, WTO, trade organizations, financial institutions, transnational corporations, NGOs.
-
the Global Justice Movement that peaked between 1998 and 2003, was effectively a rebellion against the rule of that very planetary bureaucracy.
-
I’ll take an obvious example. One often hears that antiwar protests in the late sixties and early seventies were ultimately failures
-
Clearly, an antiwar movement in the sixties that is still tying the hands of U.S. military planners in 2012 can hardly be considered a failure.
-
What happens when the creation of that sense of failure, of the complete ineffectiveness of political action against the system, becomes the chief objective of those in power?
-
The theorist Michael Albert has worked out a detailed plan for how a modern economy could run without money on a democratic, participatory basis.
-
Myself, I am less interested in deciding what sort of economic system we should have in a free society than in creating the means by which people can make such decisions for themselves.
The Ingenesist Project - The Value Game - A New Class of Business Methods - 1 views
The Sarapis Foundation - 0 views
161More
Open Capital: Article: If not Global Captalism - then What? - by Chris Cook - 0 views
-
I posit an optimistic view of the potential for Society from the emergence of a new and “Open” form of Capitalism.
- ...158 more annotations...
-
‘Enterprise’ is defined as ‘any entity within which two or more individuals create, accumulate or exchange Value”.
-
Pirsig’s approach Capital may be viewed as “Static” Value and Money as “Dynamic” Value. “Transactions” are the “events” at which individuals (Subjects) interact with each other or with Capital (both as Objects) to create forms of Value and at which “Value judgments” are made based upon a “Value Unit”.
-
The result of these Value Events /Transactions is to create subject/object pairings in the form of data ie Who “owns” or has rights of use in What,
-
It, too, may then be defined in a subject/object pairing through the concept of “intellectual property”.
-
“The purpose of money is to facilitate barter by splitting the transaction into two parts, the acceptor of money reserving the power to requisition value from any trader at any time
-
The monetary process is a dynamic one involving the creation and recording of obligations as between individuals and the later fulfilment of these obligations
-
Static Value – which only becomes “Money”/ Dynamic Value when exchanged in the transitory Monetary process.
-
the practice of Lending involves an incomplete exchange in terms of risk and reward: a Lender, as opposed to an Investor, has no interest in the outcome of the Loan, and requires the repayment of Principal no matter the ability of the Borrower to repay.
-
an “Object” circulating but rather a dynamic process of Value creation and exchange by reference to a “Value Unit”.
-
in relation to Productive Capital relates to the extent of “property rights” which may be held over it thereby allowing individuals to assert “absolute” permanent and exclusive ownership - in particular in relation to Land
-
need for institutions which outlived the lives of the Members led to the development of the Corporate body with a legal existence independent of its Members
-
The key development in the history of Capitalism was the creation of the ‘Joint Stock’ Corporate with liability limited by shares of a ‘Nominal’ or ‘Par’ value
-
over the next 150 years the Limited Liability Corporate evolved into the Public Limited Liability Corporate
-
Such “Closed” Shares of “fixed” value constitute an absolute and permanent claim over the assets and revenues of the Enterprise to the exclusion of all other “stakeholders” such as Suppliers, Customers, Staff, and Debt Financiers.
-
It has the characteristics of what biologists call a ‘semi-permeable membrane’ in the way that it allows Economic Value to be extracted from other stakeholders but not to pass the other way.
-
Capital most certainly is and always has been - through the discontinuity (see diagram) between:‘Fixed’ Capital in the form of shares ie Equity; and ‘Working’ Capital in the form of debt finance, credit from suppliers, pre-payments by customers and obligations to staff and management.
-
xchange of Economic Value in a Closed Corporate is made difficult and true sharing of Risk and Reward is simply not possible
-
All that is needed is a simple ‘Member Agreement’ – a legal protocol which sets out the Aims, Objectives. Principles of Governance, Revenue Sharing, Dispute Resolution, Transparency and any other matters that Members agree should be included. Amazingly enough, this Agreement need not even be in writing, since in the absence of a written agreement Partnership Law is applied by way of default.
-
The ease of use and total flexibility enables the UK LLP to be utilised in a way never intended – as an ‘Open’ Corporate partnership.
-
it is now possible for any stakeholder to become a Member of a UK LLP simply through signing a suitably drafted Member Agreement
-
may instead become true Partners in the Enterprise with their interests aligned with other stakeholders.
-
no profit or loss in an Open Corporate Partnership, merely Value creation and exchange between members in conformance with the Member Agreement.
-
in an Enterprise constitute an infinitely divisible, flexible and scaleable form of Capital capable of distributing or accumulating Value organically as the Enterprise itself grows in Value or chooses to distribute it.
-
Within the OCP Capital and Revenue are continuous: to the extent that an Investee pays Rental in advance of the due date he becomes an Investor.
-
A Co-operative is not an enterprise structure: it is a set of Principles that may be applied to different types of enterprise structure.
-
the crippling factors in practical terms have been, inter alia: the liability to which Member partners are exposed from the actions of their co-partners on their behalf; limited ability to raise capital.
-
they favour the interests of other stakeholders, are relatively restricted in accessing investment; are arguably deficient in incentivising innovation.
-
The ‘new’ LLP was expressly created to solve the former problem by limiting the liability of Member partners to those assets which they choose to place within its protective ‘semi-permeable membrane’
-
However, the ability to configure the LLP as an “Open” Corporate permits a new and superior form of Enterprise.
-
it is possible to re-organise any existing enterprise as either a partnership or as a partnership of partnerships.
-
would be divided among Members in accordance with the LLP Agreement. This means that all Members share a common interest in collaborating/co-operating to maximise the Value generated by the LLP collectively as opposed to competing with other stakeholders to maximise their individual share at the other stakeholders’ expense.
-
he ‘Commercial’ Enterprise LLP – where the object is for a closed group of individuals to maximise the value generated in their partnership. There are already over 7,000 of these.
-
the Profit generated in a competitive economy based upon shareholder value and unsustainable growth results from a transfer of risks outwards, and the transfer of reward inwards, leading to a one way transfer of Economic Value.
-
Whether its assets are protected within a corporate entity with limited liability or not, it will always operate co-operatively – for mutual profit.
-
continuity between Capital as Static Value and Money as Dynamic Value which has never before been possible due to the dichotomy between the absolute/infinite and the absolute/finite durations of the competing claims over assets – “Equity” and “Debt”
-
Open Capital Partnership gives rise to a new form of Financial Capital of indeterminate duration. It enables the Capitalisation of assets and the monetisation of revenue streams in an entirely new way.
-
It is possible to envisage a Society within which individuals are members of a portfolio of Enterprises constituted as partnerships, whether limited in liability or otherwise.
-
‘Commercial’ enterprises of all kinds aimed at co-operatively working together to maximise value for the Members.
-
It can only be replaced by another ‘emergent’ phenomenon, which is adopted ‘virally’ because any Enterprise which does not utilise it will be at a disadvantage to an Enterprise which does.
-
The ‘Open’ Corporate Partnership is: capable of linking any individuals anywhere in respect of collective ownership of assets anywhere; extremely cheap and simple to operate; and because one LLP may be a Member of another it is organically flexible and ‘scaleable’. The phenomenon of “Open Capital” – which is already visible in the form of significant commercial transactions - enables an extremely simple and continuous relationship between those who wish to participate indefinitely in an Enterprise and those who wish to participate for a defined period of time.
-
Moreover, the infinitely divisible proportionate “shares” which constitute ‘Open’ Capital allow stakeholder interests to grow flexibly and organically with the growth in Value of the Enterprise. In legal terms, the LLP agreement is essentially consensual and ‘pre-distributive’: it is demonstrably superior to prescriptive complex contractual relationships negotiated adversarially and subject to subsequent re-distributive legal action. Above all, the ‘Open’ Corporate Partnership is a Co-operative phenomenon which is capable, the author believes, of unleashing the “Co-operative Advantage” based upon the absence of a requirement to pay returns to “rentier” Capitalists.
Local Exchange Trading Systems - Wikipedia article - 0 views
en.wikipedia.org/...Local_Exchange_Trading_Systems
wikipedia exchange trading finance community economy local
shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 12 May 11
- Cached
Imagine the Future of Money : DYNDY - 0 views
Welcome - Paul's Post-scarcity Perambulations - 0 views
Local Food Systems | ...a site for networking, collaborating, and building local economies - 0 views
1More
Open Collaboration - The Next Economic Paradigm - 0 views
www.chaoticripple.com/...open-collaboration-paradigm
open collaboration economics economy paradigm blog article Joe Brewer
shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 30 Apr 11
- No Cached