[p2p-research] A revision of some of the previous statements

[Kevin Carson]

On April 21 <Richard.J.Schulte at gmail.com> wrote:

> In retrospect, I have realized it was probably counterproductive to declaim
> the efforts of Evergreen and Mondragon.  They are doing a lot of good work,
> for the most part, and generally are structured fairly.  However, there are
> some concerns that I have, and about the over glorified non-profit community
> here in Cleveland, that need to be addressed before a more holistic agenda
> is approached.  In order to effectively work with them, a careful approach
> is going to be needed, especially due to some of the political forces they
> are attached to in the community.

One of the problems with a certain segment of liberal/progressive
thought is that it's so Schumpeterian.  By that I'm referring to
Schumpeter's argument that only big business could afford to be
innovative, because it had the market power to administer prices and
charge a price greater than marginal costs, in order to recoup outlays
for R&D.

A certain kind of liberal, likewise, tends to believe that only large
bureaucratic organizations can afford to be "progressive," and to
distrust any alternative to conventional managerial-professional ways
of doing things.  In general, it means there's always a danger of
their supporting organizations that are conventional in all regards
except for cooperative ownership:  Taylorist/Weberian work rules,
mission statements, high overhead and cost-plus markup, and all the
rest of it.

That's why you see people like Jaron Lanier and Chris Hedges who think
it's "progressive" to defend "intellectual property rights" against
Internet culture, and people like Michael Moore who think it's great
for GM to own half the economy so long as its workers have lifetime
job guarantees with union wages. (The same people instinctively react
to garage factories as "sweatshops" and see any kind of decentralist
alternative to the centralized corporate-state nexus as just another
version of neoliberalism in sheep's clothing.)  They tend to favor a
"regulated utility" model where a handful of giant organizations are
guaranteed reasonable profits, and in return take good care of their
serfs.  In the cultural realm, that means a fear of network culture
and a nostalgia for the days when a handful of gatekeeper corporations
controlled all information (but were regulated by the Fairness
Doctrine).

> I would really like to engage some of the thinkers via p2p foundation on
> this topic, so that we can help to construct a positive, proactive agenda
> that can address the political economic landscape that is Cleveland.  What
> is the best approach to delving into these topics?  I have heard back from
> Michel, that he wants me to post on the Blog.  I have been working with Sam
> mostly on other projects.  Yours are some very forward thinking minds, and I
> trust the perspectives, insights, and visions that you might have for our
> suddenly ever-popular city to take the next and best steps.

Again, I can't recommend strongly enough that you join the P2P and
Open Manufacturing lists I sent links to.  That will put you in touch
with people much closer to the center of things in the
micromanufacturing world than I am, and perhaps people close to the
center of organizations that are visible enough to approach the
Cleveland people on an org-to-org level and catch their attention.

Again, I'm cc'ing to the lists.

Best,
Kevin

-- 
Kevin Carson
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
http://mutualist.blogspot.com
The Homebrew Industrial Revolution:  A Low-Overhead Manifesto
http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com
Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html