My disagreement with P2P is its impetus to “globalized” organization.
By contrast, the organization of sovereign food self-sufficient communities reaches “scale” through confederation, which precludes the need for any centralized government.
Also, as demonstrated by Ruben Nelson, the existing models of economic social organization are contextually disabled. (1) I add that all western civilization’s modern technological industrialism, MTI, and its military industrial complex are dependent upon fossil fuel.
I do not agree with the P2P hierarchical organization, with the upper echelons of administration being reserved for the anonymous “elders,” and their computerized systems, in the same manner as does Walden II, and the Zeitgeists.
I was appalled by Marcin Jakubowski and his model of local production for local use “entertaining” the P2P system. (Granted, that was before the model for decentralized economic social organization, DESO, had been completed.)
I do have a better model (yet to be actualized as an organization, but soon) one that cannot be “infiltrated” by P2P that has always sought to “bring together” whatever burgeoning, local organization under its “global” “organizational umbrella,” which, rather than strengthening local sovereignty P2P diminishes it by attempting to deploy its “non-territorial” sovereignty over local “territorial” sovereignty. Besides, P2P is built on the MTI “house of cards,” and thus, like western civilization, it has no future.
P2P is NOT the means to emancipation from mass centralist society, MCS, but, rather, P2P is a liberal apologist for MCS.
(You can see the content of my book, for free, at your request.)
Thanks for the precision, which I understand as a 'localist' challenge to the cosmo-local option that I propose. I define 'p2p' as the technological capacity for trans-local self-organization; I don't think this technological capability will disappear any time soon, but rather that it will be mutualized, i.e. it is sufficient for knowledge commons to be accessible in common physical libraries for the knowledge to continue to be accessible. I don't see how p2p, i.e. peer to peer connection, is liberal; it is not a strictly political category, but a socio-technical one. It's like a road: roads may be disappear, and where and when roads are built are subject to strategic and tactical discussion, but as soon as any society complexifies, they are rebuilt. Full localization without interconnection is a 'dark age' phenomenon, accompanied by massive die-outs when the surplus disappears. It is possible, and has some advantages, but comes also at great cost. Cosmo-localization through free association maintains the surplus and complexity.
What you said, “... I don't think this technological capability will disappear any time soon.” is the same as saying, I don’t think that fossil fuel will disappear.
“Full localization” (to use your term) with confederation is more than adequately interconnected.
“Cosmo-localization” is another angle on the centralized management of “global” scale production and distribution and trade. The current economy is witnessing the decline of vital minerals that can only be extracted with diesel. Industrial food production and distribution depends on diesel. Yearly, oil extraction dwindles.
“I define 'p2p' as the technological capacity for trans-local self-organization...” (Michel Bauwens)
I think p2p is among the probing “tactics” of the anonymous, transnational class of wealth that subjugates all countries.
“Liberalism” is not a political position. Rather, intellectual liberalism is critical of the status quo, but only to the point of suggesting reforms within it.
You do not know what is required for the executive function of organization to stay in the people’s control; small, sovereign communities and their confederations. But, that is not your intention. (Western civilization is the “dark age” of systemic evil.)
“Cosmo-localization through free association maintains the surplus and complexity.” (Michel Bauwens)
“Free association” is inherent in the model for decentralized economic social organization, DESO.
P2p cannot maintain the “surpluses” that depend on diesel in conjunction with disruptive climatic disorder; and your idea of “complexity” is a probe into oblivion. (Even the best case scenario will not prevent the "massive die-outs" in progress.)
P2p is not the future. The advent of modern, fossil fuel free, sovereign, decentralized civilization is the future.
DESO has yet to see the light of day, but, conditions allowing, that too will come to pass, soon.
You be well and be in Good Spirits!
Always yours, Reed Kinney
P. S. You can see and download the PDF of my book in progress... DTN member, Barbara Williams was kind enough to make this link: https://poemsforparliament.uk/book-kinney/
thanks for sharing your beliefs; but no, cosmo-localization is precisely NOT central management; it is local self-management, assisted by collective learning and coordination in larger trans-local contexts. While they may not exactly be confederations, they could be. For example, Tibetan plateau and Andean farmers sharing their learnings and experiences. This makes a huge difference in survivabilty of populations and it vital for navigating the coming crisis. In a sense, it comes down to how much people will survive the coming transition.
How would Huntington change the picture ? I am only generally aware of his ideas and their importance at a certain point in time, but I remember the adage: civilizations don't fight, only empires do. Appreciate any light you could shine on this.
Methodology is not “belief.” Thank you for making that distinction between “cosmo-localization” and centralized management. Many years ago, I investigated deeply the p2p organizational structure. I was stopped at the “opaque ceiling.” You might harbor a hopeful thought. But either you have not thought the situation through, or your nefarious hidden agenda takes precedence. Whatever the case may be, and whatever you are doing, it is not part of Ideology of Decentralized Civilization and Egalitarian Community...., which model is not about “survivability,” per se, but rather, it is about building economic mutualism, decentralized civilization, and its internal economy; the antithesis of western civilization. And that too will come to pass.
Methodology is not "belief." Thank you for making that distinction between “cosmo-localization” and centralized management. Many years ago, I investigated deeply the p2p organizational structure. I was stopped at the “opaque ceiling.” You might harbor a hopeful thought. But either you have not thought the situation through, or your nefarious hidden agenda takes precedence. Whatever the case may be, and whatever you are doing, it is not part of... Ideology of Decentralized Civilization and Egalitarian Community...., which model is not about “survivability,” per se, but rather, it is about building economic mutualism, decentralized civilization, and its internal economy; the antithesis of western civilization. And that too will come to pass.
Well, first he was a mentor to my CSDL co-founder Phil Midland -- so his work directly impacts what we do (particularly re: China) . . . !!
Second, as the most recent of these "civilizational" researchers -- indeed personally known by some still geopolitically active -- their negative reaction to his work at the CFR &c points to a crucial and widespread failure to even want to understand what follows the collapse of U.S. "hegemony," now in an advanced stage.
Third, his early work on Western "collapse," while perhaps not up to "world-theory" standards, points strongly to the *actual* developments now underway -- none of which was present in the work of Spengler or Toynbee. My orientation is skewed towards the details of "discontinuities" (or "paradigm-shifts"), which aligns with my preference for the "realist" Aristotle over the "idealist" Plato . . . <g>
Thank you, Michel. As a regional planner, trying to encourage local governments to work across their boundaries to deal with the water resources risks in the Shenandoah Valley, was to make the Valley local. That was the scale for action. At the same time, it was an element of the
(continued) Potomac-Shenandoah Basin, which had been under watershed restoration since the 1920s when National Forests and Parks were created due to the 1911 Weeks Act. That multi-state basin is local within
(continued) Chesapeake Bay watershed with parts in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, another whole that is local to itself, but politically a regional network. The Federal government is advocating and has legislated for water quality protection. I am sure similar situations exist on all continents. The next level is international. Since local is what drives action, my thought since 2000 has been to enlarge the scale one more notch. Within our local solar system, Earth is our Local Planet. Where in the 1970s, "Think globally, act locally. was a great advance in awareness, many issues cannot be resolved at a local scale, be it City, County, State/Province, or Nation. Think Local Planet, Act Regionally is my attempt to make all politics some scale of local. W. G. East in 1967 wrote, "There is but one region, the surface of the Earth." Every one of the Nations and their political subdivisions has defined boundaries, mostly undisputed, within the political overlay Humans have negotiated. Each politically defined area is a sub-region of Earth, the Whole Earth as we have seen it from space since 1968. No matter what characteristic is considered, all territories are sub-regions, though whole by definition. Boundaries in Nature are imprecise, and often fluid, while political boundaries attempt precision. Managing the negative impacts of the built environment has been a centuries-long challenge. Recognition of the Technosphere in the 1960s was another advance in perspective which is now the primary obstacle to sustainability. A global geocode would help with network management along the lines of your thinking. I have a prototype. P2P has many potential iterations and scales: public2public, poet2poet, practitioner2practitioner, etc.
Dear Michel Bauwens,
My disagreement with P2P is its impetus to “globalized” organization.
By contrast, the organization of sovereign food self-sufficient communities reaches “scale” through confederation, which precludes the need for any centralized government.
Also, as demonstrated by Ruben Nelson, the existing models of economic social organization are contextually disabled. (1) I add that all western civilization’s modern technological industrialism, MTI, and its military industrial complex are dependent upon fossil fuel.
I do not agree with the P2P hierarchical organization, with the upper echelons of administration being reserved for the anonymous “elders,” and their computerized systems, in the same manner as does Walden II, and the Zeitgeists.
I was appalled by Marcin Jakubowski and his model of local production for local use “entertaining” the P2P system. (Granted, that was before the model for decentralized economic social organization, DESO, had been completed.)
I do have a better model (yet to be actualized as an organization, but soon) one that cannot be “infiltrated” by P2P that has always sought to “bring together” whatever burgeoning, local organization under its “global” “organizational umbrella,” which, rather than strengthening local sovereignty P2P diminishes it by attempting to deploy its “non-territorial” sovereignty over local “territorial” sovereignty. Besides, P2P is built on the MTI “house of cards,” and thus, like western civilization, it has no future.
P2P is NOT the means to emancipation from mass centralist society, MCS, but, rather, P2P is a liberal apologist for MCS.
(You can see the content of my book, for free, at your request.)
You all be well and be in Good Spirits!
Always yours, Reed C. Kinney
reedk020351@gmail.com
Note, 1: Ruben Nelson’s presentation:
https://canadiancor.com/ruben-nelson-transcending-our-mti-form-of-civilization-exploring-the-new-core-work-of-the-21st-century-cacor-2022-06-2/
Thanks for the precision, which I understand as a 'localist' challenge to the cosmo-local option that I propose. I define 'p2p' as the technological capacity for trans-local self-organization; I don't think this technological capability will disappear any time soon, but rather that it will be mutualized, i.e. it is sufficient for knowledge commons to be accessible in common physical libraries for the knowledge to continue to be accessible. I don't see how p2p, i.e. peer to peer connection, is liberal; it is not a strictly political category, but a socio-technical one. It's like a road: roads may be disappear, and where and when roads are built are subject to strategic and tactical discussion, but as soon as any society complexifies, they are rebuilt. Full localization without interconnection is a 'dark age' phenomenon, accompanied by massive die-outs when the surplus disappears. It is possible, and has some advantages, but comes also at great cost. Cosmo-localization through free association maintains the surplus and complexity.
Dear Michel Bauwens,
Thank you for your kind letter.
What you said, “... I don't think this technological capability will disappear any time soon.” is the same as saying, I don’t think that fossil fuel will disappear.
“Full localization” (to use your term) with confederation is more than adequately interconnected.
“Cosmo-localization” is another angle on the centralized management of “global” scale production and distribution and trade. The current economy is witnessing the decline of vital minerals that can only be extracted with diesel. Industrial food production and distribution depends on diesel. Yearly, oil extraction dwindles.
“I define 'p2p' as the technological capacity for trans-local self-organization...” (Michel Bauwens)
I think p2p is among the probing “tactics” of the anonymous, transnational class of wealth that subjugates all countries.
“Liberalism” is not a political position. Rather, intellectual liberalism is critical of the status quo, but only to the point of suggesting reforms within it.
You do not know what is required for the executive function of organization to stay in the people’s control; small, sovereign communities and their confederations. But, that is not your intention. (Western civilization is the “dark age” of systemic evil.)
“Cosmo-localization through free association maintains the surplus and complexity.” (Michel Bauwens)
“Free association” is inherent in the model for decentralized economic social organization, DESO.
P2p cannot maintain the “surpluses” that depend on diesel in conjunction with disruptive climatic disorder; and your idea of “complexity” is a probe into oblivion. (Even the best case scenario will not prevent the "massive die-outs" in progress.)
P2p is not the future. The advent of modern, fossil fuel free, sovereign, decentralized civilization is the future.
DESO has yet to see the light of day, but, conditions allowing, that too will come to pass, soon.
You be well and be in Good Spirits!
Always yours, Reed Kinney
P. S. You can see and download the PDF of my book in progress... DTN member, Barbara Williams was kind enough to make this link: https://poemsforparliament.uk/book-kinney/
thanks for sharing your beliefs; but no, cosmo-localization is precisely NOT central management; it is local self-management, assisted by collective learning and coordination in larger trans-local contexts. While they may not exactly be confederations, they could be. For example, Tibetan plateau and Andean farmers sharing their learnings and experiences. This makes a huge difference in survivabilty of populations and it vital for navigating the coming crisis. In a sense, it comes down to how much people will survive the coming transition.
Fine that he is on your list.
He is spot on
Well done (good on Spengler & Toynbee, but don't forget Huntington) . . . <g>
How would Huntington change the picture ? I am only generally aware of his ideas and their importance at a certain point in time, but I remember the adage: civilizations don't fight, only empires do. Appreciate any light you could shine on this.
Dear Michel, Did you come across the work of Iain Mc Gilchrist? Hereby a recent lecture at Cambridge University https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JfbIJe31Rw&t=3219s
He's on my list, I have listened to various of his presentations, but have not read his books yet.
Fine that he is on your list.
He is spot on
Dear Michael Bauwens,
Methodology is not “belief.” Thank you for making that distinction between “cosmo-localization” and centralized management. Many years ago, I investigated deeply the p2p organizational structure. I was stopped at the “opaque ceiling.” You might harbor a hopeful thought. But either you have not thought the situation through, or your nefarious hidden agenda takes precedence. Whatever the case may be, and whatever you are doing, it is not part of Ideology of Decentralized Civilization and Egalitarian Community...., which model is not about “survivability,” per se, but rather, it is about building economic mutualism, decentralized civilization, and its internal economy; the antithesis of western civilization. And that too will come to pass.
You be well and be in Good Spirits!
Always yours, Reed Kinney
Dear Michael Bauwens,
Methodology is not "belief." Thank you for making that distinction between “cosmo-localization” and centralized management. Many years ago, I investigated deeply the p2p organizational structure. I was stopped at the “opaque ceiling.” You might harbor a hopeful thought. But either you have not thought the situation through, or your nefarious hidden agenda takes precedence. Whatever the case may be, and whatever you are doing, it is not part of... Ideology of Decentralized Civilization and Egalitarian Community...., which model is not about “survivability,” per se, but rather, it is about building economic mutualism, decentralized civilization, and its internal economy; the antithesis of western civilization. And that too will come to pass.
You be well and be in Good Spirits!
Always yours, Reed Kinney
Well, first he was a mentor to my CSDL co-founder Phil Midland -- so his work directly impacts what we do (particularly re: China) . . . !!
Second, as the most recent of these "civilizational" researchers -- indeed personally known by some still geopolitically active -- their negative reaction to his work at the CFR &c points to a crucial and widespread failure to even want to understand what follows the collapse of U.S. "hegemony," now in an advanced stage.
Third, his early work on Western "collapse," while perhaps not up to "world-theory" standards, points strongly to the *actual* developments now underway -- none of which was present in the work of Spengler or Toynbee. My orientation is skewed towards the details of "discontinuities" (or "paradigm-shifts"), which aligns with my preference for the "realist" Aristotle over the "idealist" Plato . . . <g>
Thank you, Michel. As a regional planner, trying to encourage local governments to work across their boundaries to deal with the water resources risks in the Shenandoah Valley, was to make the Valley local. That was the scale for action. At the same time, it was an element of the
(continued) Potomac-Shenandoah Basin, which had been under watershed restoration since the 1920s when National Forests and Parks were created due to the 1911 Weeks Act. That multi-state basin is local within
Thank you Tom, I appreciate your inter-regional work!
(continued) Chesapeake Bay watershed with parts in New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, another whole that is local to itself, but politically a regional network. The Federal government is advocating and has legislated for water quality protection. I am sure similar situations exist on all continents. The next level is international. Since local is what drives action, my thought since 2000 has been to enlarge the scale one more notch. Within our local solar system, Earth is our Local Planet. Where in the 1970s, "Think globally, act locally. was a great advance in awareness, many issues cannot be resolved at a local scale, be it City, County, State/Province, or Nation. Think Local Planet, Act Regionally is my attempt to make all politics some scale of local. W. G. East in 1967 wrote, "There is but one region, the surface of the Earth." Every one of the Nations and their political subdivisions has defined boundaries, mostly undisputed, within the political overlay Humans have negotiated. Each politically defined area is a sub-region of Earth, the Whole Earth as we have seen it from space since 1968. No matter what characteristic is considered, all territories are sub-regions, though whole by definition. Boundaries in Nature are imprecise, and often fluid, while political boundaries attempt precision. Managing the negative impacts of the built environment has been a centuries-long challenge. Recognition of the Technosphere in the 1960s was another advance in perspective which is now the primary obstacle to sustainability. A global geocode would help with network management along the lines of your thinking. I have a prototype. P2P has many potential iterations and scales: public2public, poet2poet, practitioner2practitioner, etc.