Multitude Project

Peer-to-peer is also a political and social program

equipotency of its participants

three fundamental aspects of social P2P processes

peer production - the collaborative production of use value is open to participation and use to the widest possible number (as defined by Yochai Benkler, in his essay Coase's Penguin);[1] peer governance - production or project is governed by the community of producers themselves, not by market allocation or corporate hierarchy; peer property - the use-value of property is freely accessible on a universal basis; peer services and products are distributed through new modes of property, which are not exclusive, though recognize individual authorship (i.e. the GNU General Public License or the Creative Commons licenses).

It must therefore be distinguished from both the capitalist market

and from production through state and corporate planning

it differs from traditional linear hierarchies

it differs from both traditional private property and state-based collective public property

Unlike private property, peer property is inclusive rather than exclusive

The plan starts with our common purpose.

Some of the common threads of the current global discontent:

Our political systems and structures do not have the expertise, will, or speed of decision required to address today’s complex world.

We have backward progress on the species-level threats caused by business and industry gone amok

unite to address these problems

we must come together in purpose

We can seek to solve, not just one, or a few of the above problems, but all of them. All of them at once. Together. In both senses of the word.

This is the purpose of the We Plan:

Strong forward progress on all of the major problems we face

The only way to harness the combined energy of all humanity is to build a credible plan that betters life for all humanity. This betterment must be measured by each individual’s perspective, not by a global set of “ideals” but by each one’s choice for how they’d like to see the world improve.

We must ask each individual to tell us what they think and need. The local plans must address these local and individual needs.

living organism

we must start with the end in mind

There are answers. Many have been working on the pieces for years. We must put these answers together in once place: the We Plan.

Then, we must work backwards from the end

Where we have only questions, the Plan will be to run experiments to find the best answers we can. We will learn from each other as these experiments run

will work on design for technologies; some on design for social structures; some on the logistics systems required to deliver the people, information, and materials required under the plan, some on the architecture of the Plan itself.

Just as we collectively and continuously build Wikipedia, we will collectively build the We Plan.

The We Plan will be developed both top-down and bottom-up simultaneously. Some will tie the pieces together. Some will flesh out the details of the pieces. The entire Plan will be visible to everyone all the time.

The We Plan will be a living plan

We will tell others about the Plan. We will work together to get more people to help us.

our plan will be the most credible way to provide equal rights for everyone

our plan will be the most credible way to quickly move to a sustainable ecologically sound world.

our plan will be the most credible way to reduce the need for state force and will greatly increase civil liberties.

the Plan will be efficient, healthful and intelligent.

the Plan will incorporate an open commons-based approach to intellectual property.

we will be addressing poverty and the lack of resources in a massively organized and logistically superior way.

we will make changes to our treatment of animals that harmonize with their passions.

we can develop without damaging the future for others.

Together, We will comprise the We Movement.

As the We Movement builds, We will begin implementing the plan. We will find resources. We will make the parts. We will educate. We will build.

We will have a movement with the force to make political change where necessary, to pool resources and knowledge, to stop destruction and looting by the few against the many, to remake the world in the image of our highest dreams.

Open Capital is defined as “a proportional share in an enterprise for an indeterminate time”

‘Enterprise’ is defined as ‘any entity within which two or more individuals create, accumulate or exchange Value”.

Value is to Economics as Energy and Matter are to Physics.

The Metaphysics Of Value

division between “subject” and “object”.

primary reality is “Quality”

formless and indefinable

not a “thing”

a non-intellectual awareness or “pre-intellectual reality”

but an event at which the subject becomes aware of the object and before he distinguishes it

Quality is the basis of both subject and object

distinguish between “Static” and “Dynamic” Quality

treating Value as a form of “Quality” as envisioned by Pirsig.

Riegel

defined “Value” as “ the Relativity of Desire” again implying indeterminacy.

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,

at what Price

accounting data

Neo-Classical” Economics confuses indeterminate Value with a market– determined Price –

Data may be static

This Data identifies the subject with objects such as tangible ‘Material Value’

Data may itself constitute ‘Intellectual Value’

It, too, may then be defined in a subject/object pairing through the concept of “intellectual property”.

Other forms of Value are however not definable by data:

“sentimental” Value

Emotional Value’

'Spiritual Value’

We may therefore look at the “transaction” or “value event” in a new light.

The creation and circulation of Value essentially comprises the concept we know of as “Money”.

Money / Dynamic Value

“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

money

value unit dissociated from any object

monetary unit

the basis relative to which other values may be expressed

The monetary process is a dynamic one involving the creation and recording of obligations as between individuals and the later fulfilment of these obligations

The monetary “Value Event”/ Transaction involves the creation of “Credit”

obligation to provide something of equivalent Value at a future point in time.

These obligations may be recorded on transferable documents

database of “Credit”/obligations is not Money, but temporary “Capital”

“Working Capital”

Static Value – which only becomes “Money”/ Dynamic Value when exchanged in the transitory Monetary process.

what we think of as Money is in fact not tangible “cash” but rather

the flow of data between databases of obligations maintained by Credit Institutions

or dynamic

Banks literally “loan” Money into existence

In exchange for an obligation by an Individual to provide to the Bank something of Value

Bank’s obligation is merely to provide another obligation at some future time

These Bank-issued obligations are therefore

claim upon a claim upon Value

The true source of Credit is the Individual, not the intermediary Bank

this Money they create from nothing despite the fact that it is literally Value-less

Thus there is no true sharing of Risk and Reward involved in Lending

issue in relation to Credit/Debt and this relates to the nature of Lending itself.

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.

Ethical problem

Money is not

an “Object” circulating but rather a dynamic process of Value creation and exchange by reference to a “Value Unit”.

Capital/ Static Value

Capital represents the static accumulation of Value

Some forms of Capital are “productive”

An ethical question

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

our current financial system is based not upon Value but rather a claim upon Value

Financial Capital consists of two types:

“Debt”

“Equity”

Interest

obligations of finite/temporary duration but with no participation in the assets or revenues

absolute and permanent ownership/participation (without obligation) in assets and revenues

discontinuity between Debt and Equity

at the heart of our current problems as a Society

The Enterprise

‘Charitable’ Enterprise

‘Social’ Enterprise

Value

exchanged in agreed proportions;

Value is exchanged for the Spiritual and Emotional Value

‘Commercial’ Enterprise

‘closed’

Value are exchanged between a limited number of individuals

Early enterprises were partnerships and unincorporated associations

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.

The latter are essentially ‘costs’ external to the

owners of the Enterprise

maximise ‘Shareholder Value’

There is a discontinuity/ fault-line within the ‘Closed’ Corporate

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.

irreconcilable conflict between Equity and Debt

xchange of Economic Value in a Closed Corporate is made difficult and true sharing of Risk and Reward is simply not possible

No Enterprise Model has been capable of resolving this dilemma. Until now.

Corporate Partnerships with unlimited liability

mandatory for partnerships with more than 20 partners to be incorporated

in the USA

it is the normal structure for professional partnerships

Limited Liability Partnerships

In the late 1990's

litigation

The UK LLP is supremely simple and remarkably flexible.

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.

‘Open’ Corporate Partnership

concepts which characterise the ‘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

‘Open’

supplier

employee

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.

Proportional shares

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.

Emergence of “Open” Capital

example of how ‘Temporary Equity’ may operate in practice

The Open Capital Partnership (“OCP”)

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.

Open Capital – a new Asset Class

create a new asset class of proportional “shares”/partnership interests

in Capital holding OCP’s

Property Investment Partnerships (“PIP’s”)

Open Corporate Partnerships as a Co-operative Enterprise model

A Co-operative is not an enterprise structure: it is a set of Principles that may be applied to different types of enterprise structure.

Within a Partnership there is no “Profit” and no “Loss”.

Partnerships

mutual pursuit of the creation and exchange of Value

Partners do not compete with each othe

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.

the revenues

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.

facilitate the creation of LLP’s as “Co-operatives of Co-operatives”.

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.

This,

will very often impoverish one or more constituency of stakeholders

A partnership, however, involves an exchange of value through the sharing of risk and reward.

Whether its assets are protected within a corporate entity with limited liability or not, it will always operate co-operatively – for mutual profit.

Open Capital, Economics and Politics

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.

Some will be charitable

Others will be ‘social’

‘Commercial’ enterprises of all kinds aimed at co-operatively working together to maximise value for the Members.

the process has already begun

Capitalism

superior

to all other models, such as Socialism.

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.

in solidarity with labor struggles

public education taking place at the occupation

display of direct democracy practiced in the camp.

we speak a new language, one we have to translate it for them

not enough grassroots organizers fromNew York

was pushed away by some of the cultural norms being adopted

lack of demands

over-emphasis on process

I didn’t see how this would aid in the overarching aim of building a movement, beyond a single uprising

But I was wrong about some of those assumptions

things have steadily improved

the occupation has lasted more than two weeks and it’s growing every day

slept out

marched

pizzas ordered for us

thousands of dollars sent our way

livestream

emailing

calling

tweeting

occupations being planned in something like 70 cities in theUSalone

Next, we have taken steps to define ourselves, to write documents to that affect, and to move toward a collective consciousness that is bold and uncompromising.

we have been able to continue to grow and bring new communities in despite a lack of demands

our demands really aren’t as mysterious as some people are letting on

our critics are playing dumb.

have an implicitly unifying message: We hold the banks, the millionaires, and the political elite they control, responsible for the exploitation and oppression we face

we have planted ourselves in the financial capital of the world because we see it as one of the most deeply entrenched roots of the various systems of oppression we face every day.  Come on. The clue is in the title: Occupy Wall Street.

Every day, the occupiers see themselves more and more connected to a movement – a movement around the country and the world, but also a movement through time, stretching from the giants who came before us to the future giants we will be. Every day more people from different communities join,

This deepening of consciousness and realization of the connection between the different struggles we wage will be among the most important things to come out of this.

new forms of democratic participation

self-management

a new narrative – one that refuses to accept the myth that Americans don’t struggle, that we can be bought off with TVs and iphones, that things really aren’t so bad and we’re willing to let injustice happen because we get a bigger piece of the bounty our military and capitalists extract from others.

the story will be an important force

Occupations are an incredibly important mode of resistance, an expression of a dual power strategy.

they give us the space and time with which to create an alternative, to practice, to learn, to create new relations, to become better revolutionaries, and to experience community

they serve as a base camp from which to wage a struggle against the institutions that oppress us

Both are important. And yes, we face challenges in each realm.

We have to make sure that the de-centralization we are fostering actually empowers those who aren’t already conditioned by this society to speak a lot and lead and give directions. We have to find and create a new and diverse ways for people to participate

work to formulate a message together

continue to educate ourselves and each other

And perhaps even more important than learning about the ways we are kept down, is learning and exploring the world we might want instead, one without capitalism, racism, patriarchy, and authoritarianism – an economic, political, and social model that is solidaristic, equitable, self-managing, ecologically sustainable, liberating, intimate, warm, and creative.

developing the values

imagine the institutions we will need

We have to draw clear lines from the oppression heaped on this society to the agents responsible for it.

LibertyPlazais not the struggle; it is the home for the creation of the alternative, and the staging ground for the fight that takes us out into the streets, to make business as usual truly untenable.

without

a set of policy demands

Meanwhile the occupation grows day by day.

camp in Manhattan makes the doyens of the status quo feel nervous

‘Occupy’ camps in 70 cities across the nation last weekend.

Political leaders must be wondering what is going on. (‘Who are these kids? Would they vote for me?’)

the protesters

have no single message or identity

the movement

seems to follow the pattern set in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world earlier this year

Last week, the movement crossed a threshold. A localized set of swarm events evolved into a distributed swarm network.

OccupyWallStreet is a new kind of political movement.

The fact that the protesters have not leveled any political demands is significant.

creating a clamor of grievances that works surprisingly well to consolidate actions.

protesters are refusing to engage in traditional political action per se.

the movement is political, but this is a different kind of politics, which seeks to circumnavigate the tactics and fora of established political action.

To understand the true potential of the Occupy movement, we need to reflect on how the collective voice of the protesters is giving shape to a new vision of political culture, reigniting the hopes and dreams of those who are paying attention to it, in the US and elsewhere.

OccupyWallStreet is not a political movement in the traditional sense. It is a countercultural swarm. We need to see it as a swarm to understand why people are drawn to it, and what makes it the most important political force on the planet today.

The most powerful movements of the 20th century were identity-based movements,

‘We, the oppressed X, gather together to challenge the forces amassed against us’.

these movements have political limits, set by the system that they chose to work within. We see the limits of these movements when we compare and contrast the way that they shape the identities of their members with swarm movements.

we can say that traditional movements shape and transform their member’s identities in the following way: first, by orienting thought in relation to a

‘cognitive map’ of how things work

second, corralling identity in terms of a unitary social class or group

and finally, by activating the movement by steering its energies towards contesting established political and legal structures.

Swarm movements shape identity in a completely different way.

First off, they are are issue- or cause-based, rather than identity-based, movements.

affirm the diversity of participants as their fundamental strength

Instead of seeking to reduce the movement

diversity

is powerful when focused on a common cause.

A second point of difference between traditional and swarm movements concerns what these movements seek to achieve. 

Traditional movements focus on challenging and changing institutions. The goals of these movements are thus extrinsic to the movements themselves: they are achieved as a result of movement activity. Swarms can (and usually do) set extrinsic goals. Their primary goal, however, is to sustain the critical mass that holds the network together. As a result, movement activity is focused more on the intrinsic goal of empowering the swarm than any extrinsic goal the movement might hope to achieve. This can make swarms look unfocused from an external point of view. But within the movement, conditions tend to be highly conducive for participation. Swarm movements are intrinsically empowering and thus intrinsically rewarding for participants. Ultimately, participants do not need to look beyond the act of participation for a reason to join the swarm. Swarming is its own reward; the payoff is the empowerment that comes from swarming.

the more we look for extrinsic goals, the further get from understanding what really inspires swarm activity. Swarms are based in a common sense of potential. What catalyzes a swarm movement is the sense that here, today, a new way of working and living together is possible.

Swarms are transformative movements. Insofar as members acknowledge a common sense of  identity, it is a transformative identity, a sense of being part of a movement that is changing the world.

First, a mass of people acquire a new cognitive map, representing an original conception of what they can achieve together as a network. The cognitive maps that inspire OccupyWallStreet and Occupy Together resonate with innovations in the online world. OccupyWallStreet is an ‘open space’ movement. The camp structure is an open API that anyone is free to hack into and explore using MeetUp as a Directory. The second step in the process comes when the mass of people who apply these cognitive maps start reflecting on how working together expands their common potential. This insight gives rise to the swarm. A swarm movement comes into being as a swarm when a mass collective grasps what it is capable of achieving en masse.

No government or political institution can hold its ground when confronted with a new collective sense of what human beings are capable of doing and achieving en masse.

Swarm movements do not expend their energies by contesting the status quo. They reinvent it. Norms slide in all directions and political institutions are forced to keep up.

The protesters in Liberty Square and across the US are engaged in a more serious business than contesting dominant institutions.

The human microphone system is a physical expression of the appreciative process that happens on the internet all the time.

OccupyWallStreet applies the same modus operandi to transformative political action. I see it as a living expression of the intuition behind ‘Coalition of the Willing’: